Delay in considering a preventive detention representation and failure to communicate the rejection result vitiates the detention order as it violates the detenue's fundamental procedural rights and statutory guarantees.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.31/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.09.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Kaisar Ahmad Dar, 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 detention of the detenue is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in law because the impugned order has been passed in breach of mandate of law. 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 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. 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) 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 24.09.2024 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, Pulwama, in terms of communication No.Home/PB-V/458/2024(7567827) dated 02.12.2024. In the said communication, the respondents have admitted receipt of representation of the petitioner. The representation has been received by the respondents probably in fourth week of September, 2024, which is clear from the communication dated 30.09.2024 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, to the Financial Additional Direc