Failure to provide grounds for detention and consider representation renders the detention unlawful.

1. The subject, detenue has prayed for Writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of his detention by the State Government. He is detained under order No. DMS / PSA / 52 dated 18-1-2002 passed by District Magistrate Srinagar' under S.8 of the J and K Public Safety Act, 1978 . It is alleged that earlier to this order he was detained under Order No. DMS / PSA / 98 dated 25-1-2001, by the very detaining officer Respondent No. 2 on grounds stated thereto. However, the order as also the detention was quashed by this Court in HCP No. 27/2001 vide its decision dated 13-11-2001. Yet the detenue was not released and instead the impugned detention order was again passed on the very grounds on which first detention was quashed by the Court. Neither the impugned detention order nor the grounds, nor material referred in the order was supplied to detenue. The detenue has been prejudiced to make representation against the detention order. The detenue received covering letter (Annexure - D) informing him of being detained and that he could made representation to the Government. Though neither the order nor the grounds nor the material was furnished to him, yet he moved representation (Annexure - G) addressed to Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department bearing the official receipt from Home Department. The representation was not considered. He was not even informed as to what happened to his representation. Petitioner's counsel has made submissions broadly only on the above three aspects of the case namely (i) passing of yet another detention order on the very grounds adjudicated upon by the Court earlier while holding the first detention order vitiated; (ii) non communication of the order and grounds and (iii) failure to consider the representation.

2. Despite the respondents being represented by the Govt. Advocates and Addl. Adv. General, counter has not been filed for last over one year, notwithstanding, about a dozen opportunities have been taken to file the counter. It has been in this context that the case has come on board for hearing.

3. Mr. M. M. Khan, AAG, too is heard. He has produced detention file and same is available with record.

4. The admitted facts on record are that the detenu has been detained first time under D. M. Srinagar detention order dated 25-1-2001 (Annexure - A). This order and the detention was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 27/2001. The writ Court on 13-11-2001 quashed the order and the detention with direction to release the detenu unless required in any other case. However, the detenu was not released. Then the second order was passed by D. M., Srinagar on 18-2-2003 (Annexure - B). This order is under challenge in this petition. The detenu has not been released hereto, notwithstanding the quashment of first detention order.

5. Perusal of the grounds of detention of the first detention and the second detention available on record, fairly show that out of seven paras comprising the grounds of detention of the first detention order, quashed by the Court, at least five paras have been reproduced and used as grounds of detention for the second detention order without any fresh material after passing of the first detention order. The grounds given in the first detention order are ditto reproduced in the grounds of detention of impugned second order. The allegation that the second impugned detention order is passed on self - same grounds as in the first detention order is manifestly more than made out on record. No counter or