IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Pronounced on:05.12.2025 Uploaded on: 05.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.73/2024 WASEEM AHMAD DAR ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Altamash Rashid, Advocate.

Vs.

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

Through: - Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA.

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

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.02-DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 10.02.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Kupwara, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Waseem Ahmad Dar @Leepa has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned order detention is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in law and the same has been passed in breach of the mandate of constitutional law and procedural safeguards. It has been contended It has been contended that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has not followed the procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act. 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 and 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. 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 has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. 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) Although the petitioner has raised numerous grounds for challenging the impugned order of detention yet, during the course of arguments, much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds:

1) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention was not furnished to the petitioner, as a result of which he was hampered from making an effective representation against the order of detention.

2) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of the contents of the dossier.

3) That the respondents have not taken resort to the ordinary criminal law and instead have resorted to preventive detention of the petitioner which is not permissible in law.

6) So far as the first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished a total of 23 leaves comprising copy of warrant (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), notice of detention (01 leaf), letter addressed to the Financial Commissioner Home Department, J&K (01 leaf), copy of