JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. DMR/PSA/08 of 2025 dated 05.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as (“impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri whereby he has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that whole of the material, forming basis of grounds of detention, has not been furnished to him, which has deprived him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

03. It has been contended that the detaining authority has not informed the petitioner about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention before the detaining authority. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 with a view to put the petitioner behind the bars despite having been bailed out by the competent court of law in FIR No. 125/2020 registered against him. It has also been contended that the petitioner even after being bailed out in the said FIR was again taken into custody under the garb of the impugned detention order, which clearly shows that the action of the respondents is tainted with malafides and the same constitutes colourable exercise of power on the part of the detaining authority.

04. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority viz respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that whole of the material, on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated, has been provided to the petitioner and contents of the same have been explained to the detenue in Hindi/urdu language, which he understands. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was informed about his right to make representation before the Government as well as before the detaining authority. It has been submitted that all the statutory and legal requirements were followed by the respondents while executing the detention order against the petitioner. The respondents have also produced detention record to lend support to their contentions.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record which has been produced by the respondents.

06. Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention yet much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention before the detaining authority.

07. In the above context, if we have a look at the contents of the notice of detention dated 05.06.2025 that has been served upon the petitioner, it provides that the petitioner may make a representation against the detention order to the Government if so desired. It does not in any manner inform the petitioner about his right to make a representation before the detaining authority.

08. The legal position with regard to options available to a detenue for making representation against the order of detention is well settled. Not only the Government, even the detaining authority has the power to consider the representation against the order of detention. In this regard, the Supreme Court has, in A.C. Razia Vs. Govt. of Kerala and Ors, (2004) 2 SCC 621 in the context of the COFEPOSA Act, held as under:

“12. The combined effect of the constitutional and statutory provisions from the point of view of the detenu’s right to make the representation is to provide more than one forum to re-examine or review the case of the detenu and to afford him various means of redressal of his grievance. Thus, the matter could be examined by (i) the Advisory Board (ii) the detaining