JUDGMENT : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged detention Order No. DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 17.05.2024 (for short “ the Impugned order”) passed by the respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where-under the petitioner has been detained under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition wherein, the petition is being opposed, inter-alia, on the grounds that the petitioner came to be detained by the detaining authority in terms of the order under challenge after fulfilling all statutory requirements and complying with constitutional guarantees and that the said order was duly approved by the Government and upon execution of the same against the petitioner, the contents of the order and grounds were explained to the petitioner in Urdu and Kashmiri language which he fully understood and was also informed about making of a representation to the Government against his detention. It is further stated that since the material furnished to the detaining authority by the police concerned and intelligence agency contained credible inputs that petitioner is an associate of terrorist organization of HM outfit and is indulged in propagating secessionist- terrorist ideology amongst the youth of the area, the petitioner as such, was ordered to be detained, more-so when the petitioner despite being bound down under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure continued with his said illegal activities. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file including the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents. 4. According to Mr. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file including the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents. 4. According to Mr. N.A. Ronga, appearing counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority detained the petitioner without application of mind inasmuch as, deriving subjective satisfaction, in that, the detaining authority in the impugned order has stated that the activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and warrant immediate measures as normal law of the land has proved ineffective to deter him from indulging him from repeated acts of subversive activities of violence and the details of such activities were never spelt out in the grounds of detention, including the details of the recourse taken to any normal law applicable against the petitioner for such activities and that in fact none of the such laws were invoked against the petitioner and instead the petitioner came to be straightaway detained under the preventive law. Mr. Ronga would further submit that the petitioner has read up to 9 th class not conversant with the English language in which the order and the grounds of detention were couched by the detaining authority, as such, could not make effective representation against his detention. Mr. Ronga would lastly submit that the grounds of detention framed by the detaining authority for preventive detention of the petitioner are vague inasmuch as, non-existent having been made basis for preventive detention of the petitioner primarily on account of the relations of the petitioner who allegedly are settled in PoK. 5. Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA, in opposition to the submissions of Mr. Ronga would heavily rely upon the reply affidavit filed to the petition inasmuch as, the detention record produced for perusal of the Court today. Mr. Shah insisted, as such, for dismissal of the petition while reiterating that in the process of detaining of the petitioner, all statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees were adhered to and followed. 6. Before proceedings to advert to the rival submission of appearing counsel for the parties, it would be proper to refer hereunder to the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in regard to law of preventive detention. The Apex Court in case tilted as Rahmatullah vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 599 , in paragraph-4 observed as under:- “4. The Apex Court in case tilted as Rahmatullah vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 599 , in paragraph-4 observed as under:- “4. The normal rule of law is that when a person commits an offence or a number of offences, he should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the normal appropriate criminal law; but if he is sought o be detained under any of the preventive detention laws as may often be necessary to prevent further commission of such offences, then the provisions of Article 22(5) must be complied with. Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 reads: When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. This Sub-Article provides, inter alia, that the detaining authority shall as soon as may be communicate the grounds of detention and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The opportunity of making a representation is not for nothing. The representation, if any, submitted by the detenu is meant for consideration by the Appropriate Authority without any unreasonable delay, as it involves the liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The non consideration or an unreasonably belated consideration of the representation tantamount to non-compliance of Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution.” 7. Keeping in mind aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, perusal of the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents reveals that admittedly, the respondent 1 has received a representation made against the detention of the petitioner dated 6 th June 2024, through his wife, and same has been marked to the Special Director General, CID on 12 th June, 2024 for comments/report. 8. Record also reveals that a similar representation of the petitioner made by his wife had also been forwarded by the office of the detaining authority to the respondent 1 on 8 th June, 2024. 9. 8. Record also reveals that a similar representation of the petitioner made by his wife had also been forwarded by the office of the detaining authority to the respondent 1 on 8 th June, 2024. 9. Detention record would further reveal that on 9 th October, 2024, the office of the Additional Director General of Police, CID has addressed a communication to respondent 1 being the report/comments sought in terms letter dated 12 th June, 2024, providing therein that the petitioner has provided every possible assistance to the terrorists for carrying out terrorist acts and his activities remained detrimental to the peace, security, sovereignty and integrity of the UT of J&K and that there is an apprehension that he will again indulge in similar activities if released at this stage and recommended as such, that the representation of the petitioner be rejected and turned down. 10. Record further tends to show that on 18 th October, 2024, respondent 1 has informed the detaining authority that the representation of the petitioner after being considered has been found without any merit. 11. As is manifest from above, the representation submitted by the petitioner through his wife against his detention has not been essentially considered and decided by the detaining authority independently but seemingly has decided and disposed the same on the basis of the comments and report obtained from the CID wing of the of the police . It also emanates from the above that the said representation of the petitioner has been indisputably considered and decided after a considerable period of time in the months of October, 2024, after having been made in the months of June, 2024, without there being any explanation for the said delay caused in its disposal. The aforesaid position obtaining in the matter cannot but said to be a flagrant breach of constitutional provisions contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, the grounds of challenge, urged by counsel for the petitioner and opposed by counsel for the respondents pale into insignificance and need not to be adverted to. 13. Viewed thus, the instant petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof the impugned Order No. DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 17.05.2024, is quashed with a direction to the respondents including concerned Jail authority to release the petitioner from preventive detention, unless required in any other case. 13. Viewed thus, the instant petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof the impugned Order No. DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 17.05.2024, is quashed with a direction to the respondents including concerned Jail authority to release the petitioner from preventive detention, unless required in any other case. 14. The detention record produced by counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court.