Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat v. UT OF J&K & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the
Provisions considered
- J&K Public Safety Act
- Constitution of India art. 22(5)
Judgment
Through: - Ms. Insha Rashid, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.A.CHOWDHARY,JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the order No.38/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dated
17.10.2021, issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag, (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) under Section (8) of the J&K Public Safety Act whereby Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat S/.O Late Habibullah Bhat resident of Bhatpora Larnoo District Anantnag (for short “detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and directed to be lodged in Central Jail, Jammu. 2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. 2 WP(Crl.) No.178/2021 It has been further urged that the material which formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue. It has also been averred that the grounds of detention are vague and the same are mere assertions of the detaining authority on which no prudent man can make an effective representation against the detention.
Further it is stated that the detention order has been passed on the basis of FIR but there is no mention of FIR, neither in the grounds of detention nor in the order of detention. 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 has been averred in the reply that the detaining authority has followed the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act and the detenue has been detained only after following due procedure. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with relevant material were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. The grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and I have also gone through the detention record. 3 WP(Crl.) No.178/2021 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but the main thrust of challenge to the impugned order of detention is that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, inasmuch as the material particulars of the banned organization HM, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, have not been disclosed, which prevented detenue from making an effective representation against his detention. 6) Impugned Detention Order has been based on that detenue had been working as over ground worker (OGW) of militant organization HM, particularly associated with Molvi Ashraf and his associates to give vent to their nefarious ideology and by indulging in antinational activities, with the apprehension that if not curbed, he may pose threat to the security of the State and disturb peace and tranquillity.
It was apprehended that if not checked, detenue is threat to security of State and disturb peace and tranquillity. 7) On perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention, appears to be forceful. There is no mention of the particulars of the place, the identity of the persons alleged to have received support of the detenue and the particulars of the period in the grounds of detention. These grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, as such, the detenue could not make an effective representation against his detention, on the basis of these vague allegations. 4 WP(Crl.) No.178/2021 8) Having regard to the aforestated reason there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is illegal and unsustainable.
Operative part
In my aforestated view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jahangir khan Fazal Khan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, (1989) 3 SCC 590 and Abdul Razak Nane khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, AIR 1989 SC 2265. 9) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention Order No. 38/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dated 17.10.2021 passed by District Magistrate Anantnag is set aside. The respondents are directed to set free the detenue from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case(s). 10) The record, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. Srinagar 24.05.2022 “Mujtaba ” (M.A.CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SYED MUJTABA HUSSAIN 2022.05.25 05:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
J&K Public Safety Act; Constitution of India — art. 22(5).
Which court decided this case, and when?
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on 24 May 2022. The bench was M A CHOWDHARY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.