##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

…

HCP No. 225/2024

Reserved on: 05.12.2025

Pronounced on: 26.12.2025

Uploaded on: 26.12.2025

Whether operative part or : Full

full judgment is pronounced

Firdous Ahmad Shah

……. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. B. A. Dar, Advocate

Versus.

Union Territory of J&K and Ors.

..…Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice

Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for

quashment of Order no.DMS/PSA/14/2024 dated 23.04.2024, (impugned

detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar – respondent no.2,

whereby detenu, namely, Firdous Ahmsad Shah S/o Late Ali Mohammad

Shah R/o Abi Guzar Lal Chowk, Srinagar (for brevity “detenu”) has been

placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging

in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the

State, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the

activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of

security of State and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the

security of State. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have

been reiterated in the reply/counter affidavit filed by respondents. The factual

averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in

the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant

material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was

provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

2

HCP No. 225/2024

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have perused the detention

record produced by learned counsel for respondents and considered the

matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the

grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an

effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as case mentioned in

grounds of detention has no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not

given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention, inasmuch

as the detenu has been shown involved in series of FIR Nos. 167/2003,

55/2003, 12/2006, 70/2007, 81/2009, 15/2018 and 23/2023, however no

specific allegation has been shown in the cases/FIRs mentioned in the

grounds of detention nor even an iota of connection is given in the grounds

of detention connecting the detenu with such allegations, inasmuch as, there

is no live-link and proximity between alleged activities and date of issuance

of impugned order of detention. It is also stated that the grounds of detention

are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of

mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence of which impugned

order of detention is liable to be quashed.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

impugned detention order is without application of mind as there is no

cogent reason for respondent no.2 to pass the detention order inasmuch as

the detaining authority has not given any justification or cogent reason for

passing of impugned order as to how the activities of the detenu are

prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State, hence the detention

order has no proximity with the procedure as envisaged under law. It is

stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention

by itself, which is a pre requisite for it before passing any detention order,

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents insists that detention

order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by detaining authority and

detention order is in accordance with law and there is no violation or

infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, he

pleads that petition be dismissed.

3

HCP No. 225/2024

7. In the present case, the contention