HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No.233/2024 in [HCP No. 48/2024] Ghulam Murtaza …. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Sumir Pandita, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K & Ors. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER (10.02.2025) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is aggrieved of the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench, vide which, HCP No. 48/2024 filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. The appellant was taken into the preventive detention by virtue of order No. PSA/13 of 2024 dated 16.03.2024 as his acts were considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenue was driving a truck bearing registration No. JK02-8K-4672 on 11.03.2024 and when he reached near Sidhra, the police personnel asked him to stop the vehicle and without any questions, the detenue and his vehicle were taken to the Police Post, Sidhra. He was later released, but the vehicle was empowered and subsequently, the vehicle was also Sr.No. 51 2 LPA No. 233/2024 directed to be released by the order passed by the Court of learned CJM, Jammu vide order dated 15.03.2024. After that, the detenue was taken into detention without informing him about any grounds of detention. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same lacks application of mind and does not taken into consideration the vital fact that the transportation of the animals was being done by the appellant herein under the permission granted by the District Magistrate, Jammu. The examination of the said order by this Court reveals that the permission granted was for someone else and not for the appellant herein. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has prayed for the dismissal of this appeal, as the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction. He took us to various FIRs (05 in number), where the same appellant, on different occasions, was apprehended by the Police for the same act, which was for transporting bovine without proper permit. It is not a case where a single solitary instance of such transportation has attracted the provisions of the PSA. The material on record, even before the learned Single Judge, reflects that the appellant was a recidivist committing the same act of unlawful transportation of bovine creatures despite having been apprehended earlier in such cases. 4. Under the circumstances, his detention cannot be referred to as a knee jerk reaction by the authority on one solitary instance. The nature of the appellant’s acts are also such that it has the potential to disturb public order on account of public sentiments. 3 LPA No. 233/2024 5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the rejection by the learned Single Judge is just, and proper and there is no perversity shown in the order to warrant interference with the same. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu 10.02.2025 Meenakshi