Sanjay Dhar JUDGMENT
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention bearing No. PSA/100 dated 19.02.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Detaining Authority'), whereby the petitioner has been detained in terms of the provisions of J & K Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that it has been passed by the Detaining Authority in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier; that the petitioner has not been provided with the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated; that mere registration of criminal cases against the petitioner cannot be a ground to pass the impugned order of detention, particularly, when the petitioner was already in custody and there are no compelling reasons discernible from the grounds of detention; that there has been inordinate delay in executing the warrant of detention upon the petitioner; that the petitioner is an illiterate person and grounds of detention and relevant documents were neither explained to him in the language understood by him nor the translated version of the said documents was furnished to the petitioner.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Detaining Authority. In its counter affidavit, respondent No. 2 has contended that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and drug trafficker, against whom as many as four FIRs for offences under NDPS Act stand registered and his activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It has been further contended that all the procedural safeguards have been followed while passing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner and that the grounds of detention and material in support thereof have been furnished to the petitioner. It has also been contended that none of the legal, statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been violated and that the impugned order of detention has been passed after proper application of mind.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record of detention.
5. The first and foremost ground which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority while formulating the grounds of detention has failed to apply its mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are almost xerox copy of the police dossier. A perusal of grounds of detention and the police dossier reveals that the language and expressions used in both the documents are almost similar to each other with intermixing of words here and there. This clearly shows that the detaining authority has acted in a mechanical manner.
6. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Jai Singh and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, MANU/SC/0074/1985 : (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561 clearly stated that where the grounds of detention are verbatim reproduction of the dossier submitted by the police, it goes on to show that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In Rajesh Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 8 SCC 390, the Supreme Court again reiterated that where the detention order is verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, the said order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
7. In the face of the aforesaid legal position, it can safely be stated that the detaining authority in the instant case has acted in a mechanical manner while passing the impugned order of detention rendering it unsustainable in law.
8........