AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
1) By the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the veracity and legality of detention order No.DMB/PSA/46 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam (for brevity “Detaining Authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Khursheed Ahmad Sanaie son of Late Mohammad Shaban Sanaie resident of Fallchill Khansahib, Budgam, has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of UT.
2) The petitioner has contended that the detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that whole of the material which formed basis of grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue and that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned order.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. The grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The respondents have produced the detention record in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record.
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 grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier, which shows that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention.
6) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to justify the passing of the order impugned by contending that the detenue was a habitual criminal, inasmuch as there were various criminal cases pending against him and on this basis, the Detaining Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention as there was every likelihood of the detenue indulging in similar activities. It has been further contended that all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were, provided to the detenue and in token of having received the same, the detenue has signed the receipt. It is also urged that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the detenue in the language understood by him.
7) While going through the detention records, as produced, the ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner gets support from the material on record. It is clear from the perusal of the contents of the grounds of detention and the contents of the dossier that the grounds of detention are replica of dossier with interplay of some words here and there. This exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. In the process, the deriving of subjective satisfaction has become causality. While formulating the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has to apply its own mind. It cannot simply reiterate whatever is written in the police dossier. In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh and ors vs. State of J&K (AIR 1985 SC 764).
8) The grounds of detention and the dossier, if in similar language, go on to show that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The similarity of contents of grounds of detention and police dossier in the instant case clearly exhibits mechanical functioning of the detaining authority, thereby making the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law.
9) Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam, is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
10) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.