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. From his preventive detention custody in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu commencing upon his arrest on 02.05.2025 , the petitioner – Shahnawaz Ahmad Bhat, purportedly acting through his father – Mohammad Shafi Bhat, came forward with institution of present writ petition on 14.05.2025 to challenge preventive detention Order No. DMB/PSA/08 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 05. The issuance of aforesaid detention Order No. DMB/PSA/08 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 by the respondent No. 2 –District Magistrate, Budgam is resting on grounds of detention which came to be formulated so as to lead the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam to subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to the security of State which warrant his preventive detention custody for a period to be specified by the Government and to be lodged in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. 06. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam, in fact, had been approached by Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam with a dossier submitted along with letter No. PSA Cell Dossier/2025/567-70 dated 28.04.2025 thereby reporting the alleged state of activities of the petitioner which were reckoned and to be counted as prejudicial to the security of State if the petitioner remains in his state of personal liberty by force of guaranteed fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 07. In his dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam related the petitioner to FIR No. 02/2019 with respect to an action carried out by Police Station Charar-i- Sharief to counter armed terrorists in their hideout at Haji Bagh Koker-Khal, Charar-i-Sharief which resulted in elimination of three terrorists, namely, Sabzar Ahmad Mir alias Marsad, Syed Rubani alias Abu Zarar & Tawseef Ahmad Wali alias Abu Huraira . The petitioner was one of two persons about whom the details came from the hand written phone numbers from a recovered booklet Hasn-ul- Muslim. The petitioner is alleged to have escorted the terrorists from Pulwama to Charar-i-Sharief on his scooty bearing No. JK01AG-7977. 08. The petitioner was one of two persons about whom the details came from the hand written phone numbers from a recovered booklet Hasn-ul- Muslim. The petitioner is alleged to have escorted the terrorists from Pulwama to Charar-i-Sharief on his scooty bearing No. JK01AG-7977. 08. The petitioner came to be one of accused persons subjected to trial and as an undertrial in custody came to be bailed out in 2021 whereafter the petitioner is alleged to have been still involved in activities posing a threat to the security of State for which the petitioner came to be documented thrice in 2023, 2024 & 2025 for proceedings under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and 126/170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 09. The petitioner came to be taken into custody when SI Mushtaq Ahmed , No. 139/BD, EXK-891371 of Police Station Chadoora had arrested the petitioner and handed to him 13 leaves compilation by reading over the contents in English language and explaining to him in Urdu/Kashmiri and also apprising the petitioner about his right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. 10. The petitioner came to be handed over to Superintendent Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu on 02.05.2025 11. By virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/827 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 the detention Order No. DMB/PSA/08 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 came to be approved and the case forwarded for the opinion of the Advisory Board for further course of action. 12. The forwarding of detention case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board came to take place on file No. Home/PB- V/249/2025 dated 06.05.2025 resulting in tendering of an opinion report dated 22.05.2025 holding the petitioner’s detention to be based on justifiable grounds and also the representation of the petitioner being without any substance in the estimate of the Advisory Board. 13. The petitioner had made his representation dated 03.04.2025 through his father to the Home Department, UT of J&K thereby seeking revocation of detention order. 14. Acting on basis of the Advisory Board’s opinion, the confirmation of detention order came to take place by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1088 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 with period of detention at first instance of six months with effect from 02.05.2025 till 01.11.2025 in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. 15. 14. Acting on basis of the Advisory Board’s opinion, the confirmation of detention order came to take place by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1088 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 with period of detention at first instance of six months with effect from 02.05.2025 till 01.11.2025 in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. 15. The petitioner’s detention came to be extended with effect from 01.11.2025 onwards to 01.05.2026 by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1955 of 2025 dated 29.10.2025 and the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu continuing to the place of detention. 16. The petitioner in his writ petition has assailed the detention on the grounds as set out in para 5(a) to (w). 17. The petitioner asserts that the detention order is illegal and unconstitutional being based on vague/cryptic and indefinite, lack of specific particulars and character by reference to which the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation was prejudiced. The vagueness of the grounds of detention has been asserted to go to the root of the matter of his preventive detention which is said to achieve alien and unauthorized purpose. The passing of detention order is assailed on ground of non-application of mind. The petitioner submits that except his involvement related to FIR of 2019 there is no live material thereafter to be quoted against him for his detention. 18. By reference to the proceedings under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 126/171 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner admits that he was bound down and that the petitioner did not indulge in any act prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and security of State otherwise concerned authorities would have taken recourse against the petitioner under law. It is asserted that by reference to the provisions under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 126 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 at no point of time his bond was forfeited and, thus, his preventive detention is an over reach over the ordinary law of land under which the petitioner has subjected himself. 19. The petitioner has alleged that the dossier and other materials relied upon by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam was never provided to him which prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation. 19. The petitioner has alleged that the dossier and other materials relied upon by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam was never provided to him which prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation. The petitioner refers that the bail granting order in his favour was an essential document which was never ever provided to him by reference to his involvement in case FIR No. 02/2019 . The petitioner alleges that he knows only Kashmir language and the entire documents handed over to him were never ever explained to him in said language. 20. With respect to representation made by him to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam as well as to the Government, the petitioner submits that the same had not been considered. 21. In his counter affidavit filed on 12.08.2025 , the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam defends the entire exercise of passing detention order against the petitioner and the service of the detention order upon the petitioner being in full accordance with the protocol and safeguards and, thus, urges that the preventive detention of the petitioner suffers no illegality so as to get challenged and set aside through the medium of the present writ petition. 22. Now coming to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis whereof detention order attending the petitioner is being assailed, reliance is being drawn squarely from the grounds of challenge set out in para 5 of writ petition. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned detention order suffers from vices of illegality and unconstitutionality but without spelling out which shade of illegality and unconstitutionality is afflicting the process of law leading to passing of the impugned detention order and its execution upon the petitioner. Thus, this generalized and sweeping natured challenge cannot come as a ground in setting aside the detention order impugned in the writ petition. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner next refers that the grounds are vague, cryptic and indefinite and lacks specific particulars and character under which circumstances no effective representation could be filed by the petitioner against the impugned detention order. Vagueness of the grounds of detention is being pressed into service in connection with this submission. 25. When this Court examines the grounds of detention, this Court has to bear in mind that it is the dossier submitted by Sr. Vagueness of the grounds of detention is being pressed into service in connection with this submission. 25. When this Court examines the grounds of detention, this Court has to bear in mind that it is the dossier submitted by Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam which is feeding the grounds of detention on the basis whereof the subjective satisfaction was drawn by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam to hold the petitioner liable to suffer preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of State and, therefore, the petitioner being fully provided with a copy of said dossier has avoided to advert his grouse against the facts and circumstances as set out in the dossier. 26. The petitioner in his entire writ petition nowhere pleads that he is not aware of the contents of the dossier. The petitioner has annexed with the writ petition his representation dated 03.04.2025 in which he has come forward stating that allegations levelled on the basis of the dossier of Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam are couched vague without any specific act, date or instance having been mentioned and that the dossier lacks material particulars necessary for forming a valid satisfaction under law. 27. For a very smart reason, the petitioner in his writ petition has avoided making any reference by whisper to the dossier and its contents and the reason for this evasion is obvious because the dossier does reflect and refer as to how the petitioner allegedly played an active part in transporting the eliminated terrorists on his scooty No. JK01AG-7977. 28. While in his representation, the petitioner came forward underrating dossier as lacking material particulars but in the writ petition the petitioner has taken a U-turn in saying that a copy of dossier was not made available to him. This U-turn speaks about multi meaning admission on the part of the petitioner one of which being in the present writ petition he wanted to plead ignorance of the dossier so as to escape an explanation of the fact as to whether there was an alleged use of scooty on his part in escorting the terrorists who came in confrontation with the Security Forces before being eliminated. 29. 29. This Court is not meaning to say that the alleged statement of facts in the dossier is true and correct so as to bind the petitioner with the facts thereof, but this Court is simply examining the things from the perspective of the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Budgam who was supposed to formulate not a judgment of conviction but a subjective satisfaction as to whether the petitioner’s potential to be indulgent in state of activities prejudicial to the security of State comes forth from his alleged past state of activities. Viewing thus, this Court cannot hold the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Budgam having faulted in drawing his subjective satisfaction with regard to the petitioner’s past and present state and potential of linkage with the terrorists and the handlers thereof who pose threat to the security of State/UT of J&K. 30. Other ground being pressed into service are the procedural non-compliances without specifying as to which aspect or procedural compliance has been breached or violated when the Advisory Board on that count has found nothing deficient in this regard. 31. The petitioner submits that he is not well read person and knows only Kashmiri language and the grounds of detention being in English language were not explained to him in the language understood by him. 32. This Court would have surely lend its indulgence in hearing the petitioner on this aspect provided the writ petition would have been filed by the petitioner under his own signature and direction whereas the filing of the writ petition has taken place in the name of the petitioner through his father – Mohammad Shafi Bhat, who has not pleaded in the writ petition as to when did he meet the petitioner in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu to have factual inputs from the petitioner as to the manner in which the petitioner came to be handed over the order of detention, the grounds of detention, the dossier and other relevant documents and also about the aspect of being all explained to him or not. 33. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds no valid reason to allow this writ petition and, therefore, holds the challenge to the impugned detention order as meritless dismisses and, accordingly, the writ petition. 34. Detention record to be returned back to the counsel representing the respondents.