Sajad Paswal vs State of JK &Ors.

The instant Habeas Corpus petition has been filed against order of detention bearing No.71/DMS/PSA/2016 dated 26th October, 2016,

passed by District Magistrate, Shopian i.e. Respondent No.2.

The detaining Authority was of the view that the detenue is destroying the Forest wealth by illegally cutting trees and, as such, causing great

ecological damage to the State. According to the detaining authority, the detenue indulged in illegal felling, concealing, and transporting of timber

from the Forest. He resorted to nocturnal cutting of trees and transporting the same clandestinely out of the Forest area.

In the grounds of detention, reference is made to involvement of the detenue in several FIRs in order to show the nature of trees that are cut by

the detenue and the quantity of damage done to the Valley/State Exchequer has been approximately calculated as Rs.15,84,800/- It is stated that

since the detenue being a habitual offender, destroying the Forest wealth as well as the Ecology of the State in his clandestine way of cutting green

trees, therefore, in order to ensure that the detenue does not act prejudicial to the preservation of the green gold and to restrain him from

destroying the Forest wealth, he was ordered to be detained in terms of Clause a-1, Sub-Section 1 of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public

Safety Act, 1978 vide order dated 26th October, 2016.

The grounds of detention, served on the detenue, also make mention of the various incidents where the detenue has been indulging in serious

activities of cutting/felling of green trees from the Forest and transporting them illegally out of the Forest. It is pleaded that despite so many FIRs

being registered against the detenue and normal action taken under normal law not deterring the detenue from his continued involvement in the illicit

activities of cutting timber and smuggling the same, the detaining authority was of the view that the detenue is a danger to the Forest wealth and

Ecology of the State as he indiscriminately cuts the green trees and destroys the green gold of the State. It is stated that the detenue is supported

by a gang of people and if the detenue was allowed to let lose, he will endanger the entire green cover of that area and may also stretch his

activities to other areas. On this premise, the detention has been clamped on the detenue.

Challenging the detention order, the petitioner pleads that the detention order and the grounds of detention have not been explained to the

detenue in the language known to him. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that copies of detention order, grounds of detention,

dossier, FIRs and other relevant material relied upon for detaining the detenue have not been served on the detenue.

On the first issue i.e. explanation of relevant documents in a language known to the detenue, Mr. Dar, learned AAG, pleads that in the Counter

Affidavit filed by them, they have clearly stated that the grounds of detention and relevant documents were explained to the detenue in Urdu and

Kashmir languages, the languages which the detenue understands fully for which the detenue has made an endorsement as well. Therefore, the first

ground urged by the petitioner has no basis.

With regard to the second ground agitated by the petitioner i.e. non-supply of relied upon documents to the detenue, Mr. Dar, learned AAG,

vehemently argues that the detenue has been provided all the materials such as Detention order, Grounds of Detention, Dossier and Copies of

FIRs so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation against his detention. Learned AAG pleads that the allegation of the petitioner

regarding denial of rights to the detenue has no basis and the detention order is justified. Having considered the contention raised and the points in

issue, namely, detention warrant, grounds of detention, copies of FIRs, etc., not being served on the detenue and on verification of the same with

the original record, it is evident that this plea of non-supply of relied upon documents has no basis whatsoever.

On both the aforesaid grounds, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the detention order impugned in the instant petition. As such, Habeas

Corpus petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.