The detaining authority must independently formulate the grounds for preventive detention; relying solely on grounds provided by police agencies without independent application of mind vitiates the detention order.

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.5/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 27.03.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Kulgam, whereby detenu, namely, Shakir Ahmad Itoo S/o Ghulam Mohidin Itoo R/o Gratabal , Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam , has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, and directing his lodgement in Central Jail, Srinagar on the following grounds:

i) that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent and detaining authority has not followed constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India;

ii) that the detenu has falsely been involved in number of FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention. He has never been committed any unlawful or any criminal act or any offence whatsoever from 2016 till 2024.

iii) that the detenu has never provided any logistic support or transported any arms of any person from one place to another and the detenu is not an OGW and is not in touch with any organization.

iv) that the material provided in support of order of detention of FIRs registered in Police Station Kulgam against detenu way back in the year 2014, 2015 & 2016 and that grounds of detention are remote in time and nature and have no live link and proximity with the requirement for detention of detenu.

v) That the last alleged activity against the detenu is of year 2016 and the detention order has been passed in the year 2024 on the basis of the past alleged activity, as such, there is delay of more than seven year in passing the detention order.

vi) that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a pre-requisite for him before passing any detention order which clearly depicts the non application of mind on the part of detaining authority.

vii) that the grounds of detention do not disclose any activity on the basis whereof order of detention can be passed and it appears that impugned detention order has been passed against detenu due to mistaken identity and misinformation;

viii) that the detenu has already been bailed out by the Court of law in all the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention but this important fact has not been brought to the knowledge of the detaining authority which renders the impugned detention order bad in law.

ix) that the detaining authority has not assigned any compelling and cogent reason for passing order of detention.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are prejudicial to the security of the State, and the activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply 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.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Though various submissions have been made by counsel for petitioner, yet an important aspect of the matter has been brought by him before this Court during the course of advancement of arguments. He has invited attention of this Court to impugned order of detention, particularly first line thereof and thus, it would be advantageous