HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 28/2025 Sadeeq Ahmad Th. Abdul Kareem …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Zulkarnain Chowdhary, Advocate vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 10.07.2025 ORAL 1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of order of detention bearing No. 34 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 (for short „the Impugned Order‟) passed by respondent 2 herein (for short „the Detaining Authority‟) under and in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. (For short “the Act”) 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order in the instant petition on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Counter affidavit stands filed to the petition by respondent 2 opposing the petition, inter alia, on the premise that the petitioner came to be detained under preventive detention on account of his involvement in prejudicial activities, after the Detaining Authority came to be informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu through dossier dated 27.12.2024 that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in the smuggling of bovines and also an Serial No. 2 2 HCP No. 28/2025 accused in multiple FIRs registered against him in this regard and that the said illegal activities of the petitioner suggest that the petitioner has a tendency to disturb the public order, necessitating his preventive detention. It is being further stated that after the passing of the detention order, the petitioner was handed over all the relevant material relied upon by the Detaining Authority including the copy of detention order, copy of grounds of detention and other relevant documents through the executing officer while being lodged in the District Jail, Kathua on 01.01.2025 and was also explained the contents of the same in English, Urdu, Hindi and Dogri language, which the petitioner understood and in this regard executed an acknowledgement receipt thereof and that the petitioner also came to be informed about his right of making representation against his detention. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner the respondents be it the Sponsoring Agency or the Detaining Authority initiated and ordered the preventive detention of the petitioner without application of mind while being oblivious to the facts that out of the FIRs relied upon and referred in the grounds of detention as FIR No. 465/2023 registered with Police Station Nagrota and FIR No. 98/2024 registered with Police Station, Nagrota were closed by the competent courts of jurisdiction on 24.10.2024 and 13.12.2024 respectively, in presence of the prosecuting agency of the respondents and yet the Sponsoring 3 HCP No. 28/2025 Agency as well as the Detaining Authority showed complete non- awareness in respect thereof and ironically the Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, qua the said FIRs provided that the same are still under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that upon execution of the impugned order, the Executing Officer did not provide legible copies of the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, to the petitioner which deprived the petitioner from filing an effective representation against his detention thus, in the process, infringed his constitutional right enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly submit that notwithstanding non-furnishing of legible material to the petitioner upon the execution of the impugned order, the petitioner yet submitted a representation against the impugned order on 20.01.2025, which representation was not considered by the respondents, thereby violated the mandate of law in this regard. 5. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner would heavily rely upon the averments of the counter affidavit and would insist that all statutory and constitutional requirements and guarantees were fulfilled and complied with in the process of preventive detention of the petitioner. The learned counsel would thus pray for dismissal of the petition. 4 HCP No. 28/2025 6. In so far as, the aforesaid first plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, record available on the file lend support to the same, in that, indisputably FIR No. 465/2023 and FIR No. 98/2024 (Supra) stands disposed of on 24.10.2024 and 13.12.2024 respectively by the concerned trial courts prior to the passing of impugned order. Neither the Sponsoring Agency/SSP concerned nor the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned order on 30.12.2024 have shown awareness about the same. The said fact, thus, reflects complete non- application of mind on part of the respondents including the Detaining Authority, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In so far as, the aforesaid next plea of the counsel for the petitioner qua the furnishing of illegible material upon execution of the impugned order to the petitioner is concerned, the said plea specifically has been pleaded by the petitioner in Para (12) of the petition, which however, has not been in specific terms denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent 2 to the petition thus, leaving no option for the Court except to draw an adverse inference against the respondents in this regard. 8. In so far as, the aforesaid last plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner qua the non-consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2025 against the impugned order is concerned, although the respondents, in the counter affidavit, have not denied the said plea of the petitioner yet perusal of the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents would reveal that in terms of 5 HCP No. 28/2025 communication dated 03.03.2025 addressed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Home Department to the District Magistrate Jammu, the receipt of the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2025 is admitted while stating further therein the said communication that the said representation after being considered, has been found without any merit. As is manifest from the said communication dated 03.03.2025, the result of consideration representation of the same stands conveyed to the petitioner on 03.04.2025 i.e. almost after more than a month. In this regard law stands settled by the Apex Court in case titled as K. M. Abdulla Kunhi vs. Union of India and others reported in 1991 (1) SCC 476 wherein slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation of the detenue and any unexplained delay in disposal of such representation has been held amounting to the breach of constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order bearing No. 34 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 passed by respondent 2 under and in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 is quashed with a direction to the respondents including the concerned Jail Authority to release the petitioner from preventive detention forthwith unless the petitioner is required in any other case. 6 HCP No. 28/2025 11. The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 10.07.2025 Mahavir Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.