IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Pronounced on:11.12.2025 Uploaded on: 11.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.141/2024 WASEEM MEHRAJ FARASH ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.07/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 29.03.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Wasim Mehraj Farash, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.

2) It has been contended by the petitioner that grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale, on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered as the result of consideration has not been conveyed to him.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the activities of the detenue have been found prejudicial to the security of the state and he has been booked in various criminal cases. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments, was on the grounds that the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights.

6) A perusal of the detention record reveals that the representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2024 has been rejected by the Government and an intimation in this regard has been communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Baramulla, in terms of communication No.Home/PB-V/141/2024(7448714) dated 03.10.2024. In the said communication, the respondents have admitted receipt of representation of the petitioner. The representation has been received by the respondents on 16.04.2024, which is clear from the endorsement of the said date made on the representation. The same has been forwarded by the District Magistrate, Baramulla to the Financial Commissioner (ACS), Home Department, that forms part of the detention record,. The question that arises for determination is as to whether consideration of representation after a period of more than five months from the date of receipt of the same satisfies the requirement of law.

7) The aforesaid question has been answering by the Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98. It would be apt to refer to observations made