Justice Sanjeev Kumar while dismissing the petition filed by Ishfaq Ahmad Dar seeking quashment of Public Safet Act, observed that while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before the detaining authority, another view was possible. Such being the scope of enquiry in this field, I am afraid that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any law and, thus, cannot be accepted. On the facts, I also do not find that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier supplied by the sponsoring authority. The sponsoring authority not only supplied the material, viz. dossier, containing gist of the activities of the detenu but also supplied the material in the shape of FIRs and challan. All this material was before the detaining authority when he arrived at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are such, which would entail the preventive detention under J&K Public Safety.
High Court observed that Execution Report also reveals that the contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention had been read over and explained to detenu in Kashmiri language, which he fully understood and it was in lieu whereof that he subscribed his signature on the Execution Report. The detention record also comprises of an Affidavit, duly sworn by aforesaid Executing Officer, in which he affirms on oath that he executed the order of detention. Thus, it is evident from the overleaf of the order of detention as also Affidavit, sworn by Executing Officer that the detenu, at the time of execution of detention order, has been handed over all what has been referred to in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority, so as to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention. The detenu has also been informed that he can make a representation against his detention to the Government as well as to the detaining authority. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenu has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing the detention order. The detaining authority has narrated the facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under Section 8 of the Act of 1978, and record the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was required to be placed under the preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 15.The detaining authority, in the present case, has informed the detenu that the detenu inclined towards stone pelting upon police/law enforcing agencies during the year 2013 for his ulterior motive and receiving gains and hefty sums from the high-profile secessionist elements so as to create chaotic atmosphere in Hajin area. The detenu is said to have been found instrumental in fomenting trouble in Hajin and its adjacent areas and his constant involvement in escalating nefarious/subversive activities in Hajin area have been established beyond all shadow of doubt which can be gauged by various criminal cases/activities registered against detenu in police station Hajin. As many as eight FIRs have been shown registered against detenu for his involvement in pelting stones on police/security personnel causing injuries to them, besides damaging government vehicles / properties. Grounds of detention also make mention that detenu has not shun the path of nefarious/subversive activities and is continuously instigating / provoking the youth/general public against the Government established by law particularly in Sub Division Hajin and District Bandipora in general. The detaining authority has extracted the activities of the detenu starting from the year 2013 and the details relating to 08 cases-FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely, it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining authority has passed an order detaining the detenu under preventive detention. In view of enormous materials, which are available in the grounds of detention, the detenu cannot be heard saying that any of his Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention order in question was slapped on him and thereafter executed. 16. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and the instances and cases mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu and have been fabricated by police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenu. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court, in several decisions, has held that even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient for forming the requisite satisfaction for detaining the person. In Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC135, it was observed by the Supreme Court that while ordinarily-speaking one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case “one act may suffice'”. That was a case of wagon-breaking and given the nature of the Act, it was held therein that “one act is sufficient”.JNF