1. The respondent came to be detained by the appellant No.2 (for short "the Detaining Authority) in terms of order dated 23.08.2023 by invoking powers in terms of clause (a) of S.8 of the J and K Public Safety Act (for short "the Act"). The order of detention came to be impugned by the respondent through the medium of HCP No.109/2023 on various grounds including that the respondent had submitted the representation dated 04.09.2023 through his wife to appellants No.1 and 2 but the same was not considered. It was also contended by the respondent that the constitutional as well as statutory safeguards as provided under the Constitution of India and the Act respectively were flagrantly violated by the appellants.

2. The appellants, in their reply to the writ petition, filed by the respondents, stated that the respondent has been detained in terms of impugned order issued by the Detaining Authority and all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention, order of detention and the entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority came to be furnished to the detenue well within the statutory period provided under S.13 of the Act. The warrant was executed by the appellants on 24.08.2023 and the respondent was handed over to Superintendent, District Jail, Kupwara, for lodgment. The contents of the detain order / warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he fully understood and in lieu whereof, he subscribed his signatures on the execution report / order. He was also informed about his right of making representation to the Detaining Authority or to the Government but he didn't choose to do so. It was further averred that in terms of S.15 of the Act, the case of the respondent was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion and the Advisory Board, after considering the material placed before it, opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the respondent and after opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government, vide order dated 06.10.2023, confirmed the order of detention.

3. The learned Writ Court vide its order dated 01.04.2024, allowed the petition preferred by the respondent and, while quashing the order of detention, directed the appellants to release the respondent from the preventive detention.

4. Aggrieved of the order dated 01.04.2024, the appellants have assailed the same on the ground that the learned Writ Court has wrongly mentioned in para (13) of the impugned order that the Detaining Authority did not exhibit its awareness about discharge of the respondent in FIR No.67/2022 and that the learned Writ Court has not rightly considered the stand of the appellants.

5. Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Writ Court, on wrong premises, has quashed the detention order. It has been contended that the expression "State" used in the Public Safety act would include "Union Territory of J and K" as well.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that notwithstanding the grounds that weighed with the learned Writ Court for the purpose of quashing of order of detention, the respondent could not have been detained on the basis of the activities which were stale in nature and further the respondent was detained only in view of Shri Amarnathji Yatra, 2023 and once the contingency, which prompted the appellants to detain the respondent was over, the appellants ought to have withdrawn the detention order. He has further argued that the representation submitted by the respondent through his wife was never decided by the appellants.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. We are in perfect agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Writ Court while quashing the order of detention has wrongly stated in the order impugned in this appe