Srinagar, Sept 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) detention order wrongfully imposed on Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie of Anantnag, terming it an act of shamelessness.
After quashing the PSA slapped by the District Magistrate (DM) Anantnag, the court directed the authorities to release Ganie from preventive custody.
The court observed that, “The detaining authority is shamelessly trying support for the issuance of the impugned order from material which does not speak of the involvement of the detenue in a case which has formed basis for issuance of the impugned order, as such the foundation on the basis whereof the detenue has been implicated and detained under preventive detention has collapsed by default”, reads the judgment.
Justice Moksha Kazmi while quashing the PSA, said there is absolutely no justification available on record or in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-authority as regards the factum of mistaken identity as indicated by the counsel for Ganie during the course of argument. “The prognosis, therefore, is that the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is correct”, Justice Kazmi said.
Slapping the PSA on a wrong person the court said it is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in issuing the impugned order is writ large on the face of the record, therefore, the action taken pursuant to such non-application of mind by the detaining authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The court noted the ground of detention of the detenue-Ganie which the court said is worth serious notice as admittedly the detenue is not involved in a criminal case on the basis whereof he has been detained, as it is someone else who has a similar name, who is stated to be involved in the case which founds basis for prevention detention of the detenue.
The court was convinced with the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for detenu-Ganie said that he has been able to prove that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while issuing the impugned order and since the petitioner has succeeded in proving his innocence.
