IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 22.05.2025 Pronounced on: 04.07.2025 HCP No.40/2023 OWAIS FAROOQ GANIE ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Furqan Yaqoob Sofi, GA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) By the medium of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order of detention bearing No.47/DMP/PSA/23 dated 04.08.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama. In terms of the impugned order, Owais Farooq Ganie has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 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 the basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It has P a g e | 2 also 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) The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order of detention is that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to him and this has prevented the petitioner from making an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention. 6) If we have a look at the execution report which forms part of the detention record, it is revealed that the petitioner has been furnished total P a g e | 3 11 leaves comprising detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (04 leaves) and other relevant documents (02 leaves). The grounds of detention do not bear reference to any FIR but it bears reference to proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C. As already stated, the petitioner has been furnished other material comprising two leaves, meaning that he has been furnished material relating to proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C besides having been furnished other material like detention, order notice of detention, grounds of detention and dossier of detention. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been provided whole of the material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated. In fact, the execution report shows that the petitioner has been explained the contents of the grounds of detention in Urdu/Kashmiri language as well. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 7) The second ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the detention order is that the representation made by the detenue against his detention before the District Magistrate has not been considered. In this regard a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the representation made by the petitioner through his father has been duly considered by District Magistrate, Pulwama, whereafter the same has been rejected. The order of rejection has been conveyed to the petitioner by the District Magistrate vide communication dated 11th August, 2023. Thus, the ground urged by the petitioner in this regard is not substantiated by the detention record produced by the respondents. P a g e | 4 8) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 9) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 04.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No