news details |
|
|
| High Court quashes PSA of three | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 12: The J&K High Court Srinagar Wing while hearing three different petitions, quashed the detention under PSA of three.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court while hearing two different petitions quashed the detention order of Mudasir Ahmad Dar and Rayees Ahmad Chack whereas Justice Rajnesh Oswal quashed the detention order of Shafqat Abrar.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while quashing the detention order No.62/DMS/ PSA/2019 dated 11th of October, 2019, whereby one Mudasir Ahmad Dar S/o Abdul Rasheed Dar R/o Pinjoora Shopian, observed that the grounds of detention also do not indicate any compelling reasons as to why the preventive detention of the detenue was necessitated particularly when he was already in the custody of the State for commission of very serious offences under ULA (P) Act. This clearly speaks about non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. The petitioner had not even applied for bail. In such circumstances, what made the detaining authority to pass the detention order is not forthcoming from the grounds of detention nor the same has been explained or clarified by the detaining authority.
While quashing the detention order detention passed by District Magistrate, Kulgam (the detaining authority) vide order No.74/DMK/ PSA/19 dated 05.09.2019, whereby one Rayees Ahmad Chack S/o Ghulam Nabi Chak R/o Chackpora Manzgam D. H. Pora District Kulgam (the detenue) has been placed in preventive detention, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that of the view that the order impugned is vitiated by non-application of mind of the detaining authority and, therefore, cannot sustain in law. While quashing the detention bearing No 59/DMK/PSA/2019 dated 20.08.2019 issued by respondent No. 2 by virtue of which the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the J&K Public Safety, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that it is only after the detenue is supplied all the material that has been relied upon by the detaining authority, that he can make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority and also to the Government. Failure on the part of the respondent No. 2 to supply material relied upon by him, while passing the detention order renders it illegal.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
