Rashid Ali Dar JUDGMENT
Rashid Ali Dar, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order No. DMS/PSA/05/2018 dated 18.06.2018, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No. 2 herein in exercise of vested in him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, whereby Shri Aadil Qayoom Najar (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.
2. Respondents despite numerous opportunities did not chose to file the counter affidavit. The learned AAG, however, produce the detention records for perusal of the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner projected various grounds while seeking quashment of the order impugned but the star ground is that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation by not supplying the material forming base of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention and further added that the detenue has also been disabled from making an effective representation by not supplying him the translated copies of the ground of detention which are in English language besides being in a hyper technical language which the detenue is not in a position to understand.
4. In opposition, learned AAG submitted that the relevant material considered while passing the impugned order has been furnished to the detenue and the translated copies thereof have also been supplied to him so as to enable him to file a representation which he did not chose to file, therefore, none of his rights have been violated. Further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the procedural safeguards have been strictly adhered to.
5. Considered the rival submissions and also perused the material available on the file as also the detention records as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. In the grounds of detention, detenue has been shown involved in FIR Nos. 195/2015, 177/2015, 55/2018 and 59/2018. Involvement of the detenue in the criminal cases, appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while passing the detention order. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the copies of aforementioned FIRs, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C and other material collected during investigation has been provided to the detenue. Rather the record produced by the respondents corroborates the fact that the material relied on by the detaining authority and transmitted to him by the concerned sponsoring agency has not been furnished to the detenue. It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to make an effective and purposeful representation which is his constitutional and statutory right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unless and until the material on which detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I am fortified by the judgments rendered in "Dhananjoy Dass v. District Magistrate" (MANU/SC/0063/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 1315), "Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others" (MANU/SC/0470/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 3051) and, "Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors." (MANU/SC/0562/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 2184).
7. It shall be pertinent to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others" (MANU/SC/0470/199........