LPA No. 85/2022 Page 1 of 12

IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

LPA No. 85/2022

Reserved on 22.08.2022

Pronounced on 07.10.2022

Murtaza Rashid

…Appellant(s)

Through:

Mr. G. N. Shaheen, Adv.

Vs.

Union Territory of JK & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

Pankaj Mithal, CJ

1.

The District Magistrate, Pulwama, on being satisfied, on the basis of

the letter dated 30^th October 2021 and the material produced along-

with it in the form of dossier by the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Awantipora, ordered for the preventive detention of the petitioner-

appellant Murtaza Rashid under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety

Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as >the Act?) to prevent him from

acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2.

The aforesaid detention order was executed on 31^st October 2021 and

the petitioner-appellant was taken into preventive custody. The

detention order was confirmed on 29^th November 2021. The

petitioner-appellant was supplied with the detention order, detention

notice and the grounds of detention and it is said that the contents of

the order of detention and the grounds of detention were duly read

over and explained to him in the language he understands.

3.

The petitioner-appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court to

challenge the aforesaid detention order and to set him free on various

grounds.

4.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the

detention order was considered by the learned Single Judge in the light

of the pleadings exchanged between the parties and was dismissed

vide judgment and order dated 12^th May 2022.

LPA No. 85/2022 Page 2 of 12

5.

The learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings and the

arguments advanced by the respective parties considered as many as

five points on which the detention order was challenged including the

grounds that the detention order is vague; it suffers from non-

application of mind as the grounds of detention are nothing but

repetition of the police dossier; the detaining authority failed to supply

the entire material which formed the basis of his detention; and the

petitioner-appellant being an illiterate person was unable to

understand the contents of the detention order, the copy of the same

was not supplied to him in the language known to him and that no

affidavit was filed to substantiate that the grounds of detention were

read over and explained to the petitioner-appellant.

6.

All the above arguments were repelled by the learned Single Judge

while dismissing the petition.

7.

The above judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12^th

May 2022 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant is

being assailed by him by filing this appeal under Clause 12 of the

Letters Patent.

8.

We have heard Mr. G. N. Shaheen, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner-appellant and Mr Asif Maqbool, learned Dy. AG appearing

for the respondents.

9.

Mr. G. N. Shaheen, learned counsel in assailing the judgment and

order of the writ court argued that full and complete material which

formed the basis of passing the impugned detention order was never

supplied to the petitioner-appellant and thus he was deprived of the

opportunity to file an effective representation as envisaged under

Section 13 of the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Secondly, the grounds on which the detention order has been passed

are vague and on such vague allegations, it was not possible for the

petitioner-appellant to submit a proper representation. Lastly, the

petitioner-appellant is an illiterate person who knows o