Serial No. 8 Reg. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 327/2024 ROUF AHMAD GANIE … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. B.A Tak, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 11.09.2025 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks quashing of detention order No. 188/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024 passed by respondent-2 herein under and in terms of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 2. The impugned order has been challenged on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that upon collective assessment of the material led to the detention of the petitioner upon subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, in that, it came to be observed by the detaining authority that the petitioner has a tendency and inclination to act against the security of UT of J&K. It is being further stated that the petitioner developed contacts with the inimical elements in District Shopian and also became a notorious Over Ground Worker (OGW) of the Terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) besides a close associate of terrorist namely Shahid Ahmad Kuttey and used to provide logistic support to the terrorist and provided them shelter. It is being next stated that the detention order came to be passed on 12.09.2024 and was executed on 26.09.2024, whereupon the petitioner came to be furnished the order of detention, grounds of detention, copies of FIR, Dossier, statement of witnesses and other relevant documents. It is further stated that the detenue was also informed that he can make a representation against his detention and that though a representation came to be received by the detaining authority and same was disposed of and found without merit. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Notwithstanding the multiple grounds of challenge urged by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner would confine the challenge to the impugned order to the ground that the grounds of detention are the replica of the dossier and the detaining authority did not apply its independent mind while framing the grounds of detention but has verbatim reproduced the grounds of detention from the said dossier. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that a representation was submitted before the respondent 1 on 04.10.2024, which, however, as per the reply filed by respondent 2 is stated to have been considered yet belatedly. Learned counsel would also submitted that grounds of detention otherwise are vague and ambiguous and do not provide the exact details of the prejudicial activities attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner owing to the said reasons became incapable of filing an effective representation against the detention. 5. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents would seek the dismissal of the petition and heavily relied upon the reply filed by respondent 2 to the petition. 6. Perusal of the record available on the file as well as the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents on careful examination admittedly reveals that the grounds of detention are essentially verbatim of the dossier furnished to the detaining authority by the sponsoring agency, thus suggesting that the detaining authority has not applied its independent mind in framing the grounds of detention and has failed to discharge its statutory duty cost upon him under the Act of 1978. Further perusal of the detention record also tends to show that the representation submitted by the petitioner before respondent 1 although has not been considered by the respondent 1, yet, seems to have been considered by the Advisory Board on 14.10.2024, and nothing emerge from the record as to whether the petitioner was communicated the decision of the disposal of the said representation. Otherwise also, it is found that the said representation has been belatedly considered and disposed of. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the only inescapable conclusion that could be drawn is that the instant petition would succeed. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned order No. 188/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024, is set aside with a direction to the concerned Jail Authority to release the petitioner from the preventive detention, unless the petitioner is required in any other case. 9. The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back in open Court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 11.09.2025 “S.Nuzhat”