S.No. 3 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 123/2024 GOWHAR MAQBOOL LONE …Petitioner/ Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Iman Abdul Muizz, Advocate vice Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, Advocate V/s UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Sing, Dy AG with Ms. Nobhar Khan, AC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. ORDER 20.02.2025 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, has challenged detention order No. 03-DMG- PSA-2024 dated 30.03.2024 (for short “Impugned Order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Ganderbal (for short the Detaining Authority) under and in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “the Act of 1978”). 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Counter affidavit to the petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner has been found nurturing the secessionist ideology and motivating others to follow the suit and upon cumulative consideration of the activities of the petitioner and in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1978 got necessitated. It is further stated that the detenue has a subversive mind set and has been found to be a serious threat to the National Security, as such, came to be detained in terms of the order in question, which order came to be passed by the Detaining Authority validly and legally under and in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1978 after fulfilling and complying with all statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record produced by the respondents. 4. Notwithstanding multiple grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in the instant petition, the counsel for the petitioner would confine the challenge only to two grounds; “Firstly” that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier suggesting that the detaining authority has not applied its independent mind while detaining the petitioner under the Act of “Secondly” that in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has referred to the alleged activities attributed to the petitioner being terrorist in nature and potential threat to the security and integrity of the Country without providing specific particulars and details of such alleged activities depriving the petitioner of his right to make an effective representation against his detention. 5. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order in question passed by the detaining authority is in line and tune with the provisions of the Act of 1978, and would insist for dismissal of the petition. 6. Insofar as the aforesaid first plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a bare perusal of the grounds of detention as also the dossier would manifestly tend to show that the grounds of detention are essentially replica of the dossier furnished by the sponsoring agency to the Detaining Authority qua the activities attributed to the petitioner. Seemingly, the Detaining Authority while drawing and framing the grounds of detention has not applied its independent mind in the matter, as such, the said failure of the Detaining Authority, in law, is not sustainable. A reference in this regard to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Jai Sing and Ors. Vs State of J&K reported in AIR 1985 SC 764” would be relevant and germane. 7. Insofar as the aforesaid next plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a deeper and closure examination of the grounds of detention and the alleged activities attributed to the petitioner herein to be prejudicial to the security and the integrity of the country is concerned, it transpires that no specific details and particulars of such activities have been provided or detailed out in the grounds of detention. The said failure of the Detaining Authority as well cannot sustain in law, moreso, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as “Ram Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in AIR 1975 SC 223 wherein it has been, inter alia, held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that the detenue shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention and that by a long series of decision, this right has to be real and effective, not illusive or empty and that if the petitioner was not apprised of what was truly alleged against him and if the accusation, reasonably, was unintelligible, he was deprived of an opportunity to make an effective representation against the detention order”. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, it cannot, but be said that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and as a consequence whereof, the impugned order No. 03-DMG-PSA-2024 dated 30.03.2024 is quashed, with a direction to the respondents including concerned jail authority to release the petitioner from preventive detention forthwith, unless required in any other case. 10. The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court. 11. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 20.02.2025 “S.Nuzhat”