Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directs the United States administration to pay a compensation of Rs five lakh to lawyer Ali Mohammad Lone alias Zahid, former spokesperson of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami organization, for illegal detention under public security Have given. , act.
Quashing Lone's detention under the PSA, Justice Rahul Bharti said the detention order passed by the Pulwama District Magistrate read with government orders granting and confirming preventive detention is illegal and unreasonable.
The 13-page order said, "Therefore, the said order with preventive custody of the petitioner is quashed and cancelled. The concerned jail superintendent, where the petitioner is detained, shall send the petitioner to his jail.Instructions have been given "release from." The text was passed by Justice Bharati.
Although the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs 25 lakh, the court said a compensation of Rs five lakh would serve the ends of justice.
"Therefore, apart from holding and declaring the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal, the petitioner is also entitled to a compensation of Rs five lakh payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."
Lone was first arrested in 2019 but his preventive custody was canceled by the court in July that year.However, he was detained again under the preventive law within six days, but the court canceled the order in 2020. Within three months, he was again booked under preventive laws, but in 2021 the court canceled the detention.
"Passing the impugned custody order, which is the fourth consecutive order against the like-minded petitioner, which operated through the SSP Pulwama and th respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama and was mechanically followed by the Government, at least it Have affected at least read the final judgment dated 24/02/2021 harassing SSP Pulwama and respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, so as to appreciate the judgment in which this Court, in a very clear and unambiguous manner In words, the petitioners are stuck to the old grounds for preventive detention for the third time,” the court said.
"Now if the three judgments of this Court quashing the preventive detention of the petitioner have not already been taken into consideration thrice, why should it not be so that there is prudence on the part of the SSP Pulwama, th respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Pulwama has been used and also for the last time by respondent No. 1 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, then how can it be claimed by the said three officers at their respective levels that the preventive detention of the petitioner for the fourth time is the result of an open and fair the hearing.It is a mindset that works on changing the factual scenario. Left at the will of SSP Pulwama and respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Pulwama will then pronounce the verdict.'' Cancellation of preventive detention of a person by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is not a matter in their interest and the same person may have to face rotational preventive detention. Reiterating the pretext that the preventive custody granted has not been cancelled.
"It appears that the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, by continuing the preventive detention of the petitioner, have violated the law and their respective jurisdiction in the matter of repeatedly targeting the petitioner with preventive action." Has extra constitutional powers.Irrespective of the fact that SAI fails to maintain preventive custody before the court,'' the court said.
Quashing Lone's detention under the PSA, Justice Rahul Bharti said the detention order passed by the Pulwama District Magistrate read with government orders granting and confirming preventive detention is illegal and unreasonable.
The 13-page order said, "Therefore, the said order with preventive custody of the petitioner is quashed and cancelled. The concerned jail superintendent, where the petitioner is detained, shall send the petitioner to his jail.Instructions have been given "release from." The text was passed by Justice Bharati.
Although the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs 25 lakh, the court said a compensation of Rs five lakh would serve the ends of justice.
"Therefore, apart from holding and declaring the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal, the petitioner is also entitled to a compensation of Rs five lakh payable by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."
Lone was first arrested in 2019 but his preventive custody was canceled by the court in July that year.However, he was detained again under the preventive law within six days, but the court canceled the order in 2020. Within three months, he was again booked under preventive laws, but in 2021 the court canceled the detention.
"Passing the impugned custody order, which is the fourth consecutive order against the like-minded petitioner, which operated through the SSP Pulwama and th respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama and was mechanically followed by the Government, at least it Have affected at least read the final judgment dated 24/02/2021 harassing SSP Pulwama and respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, so as to appreciate the judgment in which this Court, in a very clear and unambiguous manner In words, the petitioners are stuck to the old grounds for preventive detention for the third time,” the court said.
"Now if the three judgments of this Court quashing the preventive detention of the petitioner have not already been taken into consideration thrice, why should it not be so that there is prudence on the part of the SSP Pulwama, th respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Pulwama has been used and also for the last time by respondent No. 1 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, then how can it be claimed by the said three officers at their respective levels that the preventive detention of the petitioner for the fourth time is the result of an open and fair the hearing.It is a mindset that works on changing the factual scenario. Left at the will of SSP Pulwama and respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Pulwama will then pronounce the verdict.'' Cancellation of preventive detention of a person by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is not a matter in their interest and the same person may have to face rotational preventive detention. Reiterating the pretext that the preventive custody granted has not been cancelled.
"It appears that the SSP Pulwama and the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Pulwama, by continuing the preventive detention of the petitioner, have violated the law and their respective jurisdiction in the matter of repeatedly targeting the petitioner with preventive action." Has extra constitutional powers.Irrespective of the fact that SAI fails to maintain preventive custody before the court,'' the court said.
