JUDGEMENT : RAHUL BHARTI, J. 01. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 02. Perused the writ petition and the annexures therewith and also the counter affidavit filed in response. 03. The detention record produced also scanned thoroughly. 04. Upon coming to be arrested on 01.05.2025 pursuant to preventive detention Order No. DMB/PSA/09 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, the petitioner-Azad Ahmad Wani, acting through his father-Maqsood Ahmad Wani, came forward with present writ petition filed on 15.05.2025 thereby seeking his release from the preventive detention custody by quashment of aforesaid detention order. 05. The alleged state of activities of the petitioner found prejudicial to the security of State was first documented by the District Police on the basis whereof Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a communication No. PSA Cell/Dossier/2025/545-48 dated 26.04.2025 , submitted a dossier to the respondent No.2 – District Magistrate, Budgam on the basis whereof an issuance of an order for preventive detention of the petitioner was solicited. 06. In a six page dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam came to highlight the petitioner’s alleged state of activities on the basis whereof the petitioner’s personal liberty was purportedly proving to be prejudicial to the security of State. In this regard, an incident of January 21, 2019 related to an operation led by the Police Station Charar-i-Sharief in coordination with Security Forces is said to have busted a terrorist hiding after exchange of fire leading to recovery of illegal weapons. FIR No. 02/2019 with respect to said incident was registered by the Police Station Charar-i-Sharief. 07. In said operation, three terrorists are said to have been eliminated, namely, Sabzar Ahmad Mir alias Marsad, Syed Rubani alias Abu Zarar & Tawseef Ahmad Wali alias Abu Huraira. From the search of said eliminated terrorists mobile numbers were linked to Tanveer Ahmad Laway alias Fanna Filla & Shahnawaz Ahmad Bhat alias Naaz were found which led to the interrogation of said two persons leading to their admission of association with Al-Badr terrorist outfit from whom it came to be revealed that they were having their five supporters in terms of logistics and one of them being the petitioner herein. The movement of the terrorists is said to have been facilitated by facility of vehicles and other daily essentials. 08. The movement of the terrorists is said to have been facilitated by facility of vehicles and other daily essentials. 08. The petitioner is said to have provided the terrorists with logistical support, concealing their presence and assisted in constructing a hideout. The petitioner came to be booked for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, Arms Act, 1959 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 but came to be released from custody in 2021 whereafter consistently the petitioner has been subjected to proceedings under section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 126 & 170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. In this regard the list of proceedings under the aforesaid provisions right from 2022-2025 came to be highlighted on the basis whereof security risk assessment of the petitioner led Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam to a conclusion that the petitioner needs to be detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 09. On the basis of said dossier, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam formulated the grounds of detention and then by a cumulative sense of the alleged state of activities came up with subjective purported satisfaction to pass preventive detention Order No. DMB/PSA/09 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025. 10. By virtue of a communication No. DMB/PSA/2025/09 dated 29.04.2025 , the respondent No. 2 –District Magistrate, Budgam meant to communicate to the petitioner about the fact of passing of detention order against him and upon the petitioner’s detention his right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the District Magistrate, Budgam. 11. The detention warrant came to be executed on 01.05.2025 by ASI Mohd. Yousuf , No. 922254/EXK of Police Station Charar-i-Sharief (Budgam) who is stated to have delivered copy of warrant (1 leaf), letter of detention (1 leaf), notice of detention (1 leaf), grounds of detention (2 leaves), copy of FIR, statement and other documents (18 leaves) thereby making 23 leaves’ compilation. 12. The petitioner also came to be apprised by said detention warrant executing officer about the petitioner’s right to make a representation to the Government against his detention order. A receipt with respect to delivery of grounds of detention came to be fetched from the petitioner attested by the Assistant Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur. 13. 12. The petitioner also came to be apprised by said detention warrant executing officer about the petitioner’s right to make a representation to the Government against his detention order. A receipt with respect to delivery of grounds of detention came to be fetched from the petitioner attested by the Assistant Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur. 13. In his execution report said ASI Mohd Yousuf also refers to the fact that he had apprised the petitioner about his right to make a representation to the Government against the detention order and also explaining to the petitioner all the documents which were handed over to him in the language understood by him which being Urdu/Kashmiri. 14. By virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/822 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 , the detention order came to be approved and the case forward for opinion of the Advisory Board by virtue of a communication No. Home/PB-V/244 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 , in response whereto the Advisory Board’s opinion report dated 19.05.2025 came to be tendered holding the detention of the petitioner on justifiable grounds without any representation having come from the end of the petitioner against his preventive detention. 15. On the basis of the Advisory Board’s opinion, confirmation of the petitioner’s detention came to be accorded by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/993 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 and fixation the period of detention of the petitioner at first instance from 01.05.2025 till 31.10.2025 to be lodged in District Jail, Udhampur. 16. From his end, the petitioner, acting through his father, had addressed a representation dated 13.05.2025 to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu, copy thereof addressed to the District Magistrate, Budgam. Said representation bears date of receipt dated 16.05.2025 against No. 1882 meaning thereby the Advisory Board was still to come up with its opinion report dated 19.05.2025 and the representation of the petitioner was lying on the desk of Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. of UT of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 17. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam from his end by virtue of his communication No. DMB/PSA/2025/68-70 dated 21.05.2025 conveyed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department about the representation of the petitioner made through his father which was received by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam. 18. of UT of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 17. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam from his end by virtue of his communication No. DMB/PSA/2025/68-70 dated 21.05.2025 conveyed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department about the representation of the petitioner made through his father which was received by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam. 18. Upon expiry of first installment of the petitioner’s six months’ detention period from 01.05.2025 to 31.10.2025 , the next extension of period of detention came to be ordered in terms of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1960 of 2025 dated 29.10.2025 and next period of detention coming to be from 01.11.2025 to 30.04.2026 with place of detention continuing to be in District Jail, Udhampur. 19. The petitioner in his writ petition came to assail the detention on the grounds as set out in para 6 (a) to (k). 20. The grounds of challenge as enlisted are that the grounds of detention have no nexus with the petitioner and are fabrication in order to justify preventive detention of the petitioner. The grounds of detention have been referred to be vague, vexatious and cryptic without mention of any activity or any person with whom the petitioner indulged to cause disruption of public order or acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of State. 21. The petitioner submits that the alleged incident of FIR No. 02/2019 could not have been relatable to the cause for his preventive detention being slapped in the year 2025 The petitioner has referred to the fact of grant of bail in his favour by reference to said FIR and criminal case related therewith and that the petitioner after having served two years of under trial custody upon coming out on bail indulged in no act of omission or commission to even prejudice the facility of bail granted in his favour, which if there would have been any act of omission or commission on the part would surely have resulted in cancellation. 22. With respect to the proceedings under sections 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sections 126 & 170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, it is asserted that same provide no legitimate basis for subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention. 22. With respect to the proceedings under sections 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sections 126 & 170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, it is asserted that same provide no legitimate basis for subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention. The petitioner has alleged that the grounds of detention are nothing but a borrowed text from the dossier without reflecting any application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2 –District Magistrate, Budgam. The petitioner submits that his right to make a meaningful representation was compromised without entire material being provided to him. 23. Before proceedings further, this Court needs to highlight a fact that the petitioner in his writ petition filed on 15.05.2025 has not referred to the fact of representation having been made by him to the Government, may be for the reason that the preparation of the writ petition and writing of representation were taking place on the same day i.e. 13.05.2025 whereas writ petition came to be filed on 15.05.2025 and representation came to be submitted on 16.05.2025 24. In his counter affidavit filed on 06.08.2025 , the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam has defended the entire exercise with respect to the preventive detention of the petitioner. In para 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam submits that by a communication dated 29.04.2025 from his end (District Magistrate, Budgam’s end) the petitioner was apprised of his grounds of detention and also of his right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the District Magistrate, Budgam. 25. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam has come forward stating a fact on an affidavit that the petitioner was apprised of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government against his detention order. 26. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2 –District Magistrate, Budgam has, on his own call, annexed communication No. PSA-Cell/Exec/2025/712-15 dated 07.05.2025 of the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam addressed to the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K Srinagar on the subject of “Execution of warrant of detention under PSA confirmation thereof.” Copy of this communication is obviously addressed to the District Magistrate, Budgam for favour of kind information along with execution report. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam addressed to the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K Srinagar on the subject of “Execution of warrant of detention under PSA confirmation thereof.” Copy of this communication is obviously addressed to the District Magistrate, Budgam for favour of kind information along with execution report. The execution report as well as the receipt of grounds of detention are also accompanying the counter affidavit being part of the communication of Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam mentioned supra. 27. If anybody at the end of the Home Department, Government of UT of Jammu & Kashmir as well as of District Magistrate, Budgam would have even cursorily read, lest carefully read, the execution report as well receipt of grounds of detention, fact would have come rushing loud and clear to an alert reader that the petitioner, at no point of time, was ever apprised of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority i.e., District Magistrate, Budgam. What was apprised to the petitioner is about his right to make a representation to the Government which right the petitioner came to exercise unmindful of the fact that he could make a representation to the District Magistrate, Budgam if the same would have been conveyed to him by the detention warrant executing officer. 28. Thus, wherefrom the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate Budgam in his counter affidavit came to aver and state as a fact on affidavit that the petitioner was apprised of his right to make a representation against his detention to the detaining authority i.e. District Magistrate, Budgam is not for this Court to decipher except to say it is reflective of casual mind handling a cautioned subject. 29. This Court needs not to stretch itself further except saying that issuance and execution of a detention order under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 is an exercise which is to be participatory of due diligence and attention on the part of all the actors i.e., District Police, District Magistrate and the Home Department, Govt. of UT of J&K otherwise any self- awared official, be it Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, District Magistrate, Budgam and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. of UT of J&K otherwise any self- awared official, be it Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, District Magistrate, Budgam and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. of UT of J&K, upon reading the execution report so submitted by ASI Mohd Yousuf would have not missed to take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been kept uninformed about his right to make a representation to the detention order making authority i.e. District Magistrate, Budgam and an immediate course correction to be resorted to without loss of time for enabling the petitioner to address a representation, if he would have chosen to do so, to the District Magistrate, Budgam seeking revocation of his preventive detention. 30. This Court is not meant to lower its constitutional guard when it comes to a matter of undertaking judicial review of preventive detention order and in that sense of constitutional duty, this Court is sorry to observe that the Advisory Board seems to have also acted with a mechanical mindset in not picking up such a serious omission obtaining on record related to the preventive detention of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been apprised of his right to make a representation against his preventive detention to the detention order making authority. 31. In addition, there is another fundamental flaw which came to set in post the petitioner’s detention taking place under the impugned detention order and said flaw is that the Advisory Board was kept uninformed also about the fact that the petitioner’s representation addressed to the Government has come into picture while the Advisory Board was still seized of the file submitted by the Government for the purpose of seeking its opinion report. It cannot be heard to be said from the end of the Government that the petitioner’s representation which had landed on its table on 16.05.2025 was bit delayed one for being submitted to the Advisory Board for the purpose of its consideration by time reference of Advisory Board’s opinion dated 19.05.2025 involving intervening time of two days. 32. Therefore, this Court holds the preventive detention of the petitioner in terms of procedural compliances seriously flawed and warranting to be quashed which is, accordingly, quashed. 33. Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/09 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam read with approval/confirmation/extension order/s are also held to be illegal and quashed. 34. 32. Therefore, this Court holds the preventive detention of the petitioner in terms of procedural compliances seriously flawed and warranting to be quashed which is, accordingly, quashed. 33. Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/09 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam read with approval/confirmation/extension order/s are also held to be illegal and quashed. 34. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty forthwith by his release from the concerned jail wherever the petitioner is kept confined and the Superintendent concerned to act in abidance of the writ hereby issued. 35. Disposed of. 36. Detention record to be returned back to the counsel representing the respondents.