IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 26.05.2025 Pronounced on: 11.07.2025 HCP No.129/2024 ASRAR AHMAD BALA ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has assailed order of detention bearing No.DMS/PSA/13/2024 dated 22.04.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar. In terms of the impugned order, Asrar Ahmad Bala has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It has also P a g e | 2 been contended that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered by the respondents. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him; that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that a representation was submitted by the detenue through his father before the respondents but the same was not considered rendering the detention order unsustainable in law. 6) It has been specifically contended by the petitioner that he had made a representation against his detention, which, seemingly, has been received by the office of District Magistrate, Srinagar, on 25.04.2024. The copy of P a g e | 3 the representation bears the seal and endorsement of the office of the District Magistrate concerned. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in ground (xi) of his petition that he made a representation before the detaining authority but the same has not been considered. These assertions have gone unrebutted as there is no denial to the same by the respondents in the counter affidavit. The non-consideration or an unreasonably belated consideration of the representation indisputably amounts to violation of constitutional safeguards provided by the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which in turn renders the detention unsustainable in law. In my said view, I am supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rahmatullah Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 559, and Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98. 7) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 8) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 11.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 02:51