JUDGMENT

1. The District Magistrate, Pulwam a by Order No.DMP/PSA/23/16 dated

19.04.2023 has placed one Mohd. Amin Wagay S/o Gh. Mohi-Ud-Din Wagay R/o Aglar Kandi Tehsil Rajpora District Pulwama under the preventive detention under provisions of Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and has been lodged in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The wife of the petitioner is aggrieved of and seeks quashment of the order on the following grounds:

i) That the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can made representation against such allegation and passing of detention on such ground is unjustified and unreasonable.

ii) That the detenue is not involved in any FIR and the allegations are imaginary without any basis iii) That there is inordinate delay in execution of detention order.

2. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating there that the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of the Act of 1978 validly and legally by virtue of detention order. All statutory requirements and constitutional quarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has passed order of detention after deriving subjective satisfaction in the matter. The entire material relied upon by the detaining authority came to be furnished to the detenue well within statutory period. In compliance to District Magistrate’s detention order, the warrant was accordingly executed on 20/04/2023 by Inspector Latief Shabnum No. EXK-115708 of DPL Pulwama and detenue was handed over to Asstt. Superintendent Central Jail Jammu Kot Bhalwal for lodgment. The contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he fully understood and in lieu whereof, the detenue/ petitioner subscribed his signatures on the Execution report/order. The detenue was also well informed about his right of making of representation to the detaining authority or to Government against his detention. The detenue despite having received the aforesaid entire material has not chosen to make any representation against his detention.

3. Photocopy of the record is provided by learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel has raised argument that the petitioner was not provided all the documents which were required to be provided in pursuance to the detention order passed against him. The representation which he could have made before the Advisory Board/Government could not be made as the petitioner was not provided the requisite material on the basis of which he could have filed effective representation. The translated copies of the material were not provided to the detenue who being illiterate debarred him from making effective representation. There is no co-relation between the alleged activities of the petitioner and the detention order passed by the detaining authority.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was sufficient material for the detaining authority to pass fresh order of detention. The petitioner being OGW of banned terrorist Organization “Jeish-e-Mohammad (JEM)/The Resistance Front (TRF), was providing logistic support to the militants and thereby was indulging in the anti national activities, being threat to the security of the State. The petitioner was provided all the relevant material but he did not choose to file representation.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. As far as sufficiency of the ground to detain the petitioner is concerned it is evident from the ground of detention that he is over-ground worker (OGW) of the terrorist outfits and that the petitioner has motivated the youth, names mentioned in the detention order, to work as OGW for the terrorist organization. The petitioner is also stated to influence the gullible minds of youngsters