Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Arbaz Ahmad Mir Th His Grand Mother Mst … vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors on 11 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
02
Regular
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 293/2025.
ARBAZ AHMAD MIR TH HIS GRAND MOTHER MST ZAREEFA.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Aasif Nabi, Advocate.
Mr. Syed Ashiq Hussain, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA.
Ms Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin S Qadri, Senior AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
11.02.2026
01. The petitioner, acting through his 80-years old grandmother- Mst.
Zareefa, who has approached this Court by way of present writ
petition filed on 10.09.2025 thereby seeking quashment of
preventive detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/146/2025 dated
07.08.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir in exercise of powers under Section 3 of
the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (PITNDPS), 1988 thereby directing the detention of
the petitioner and his confinement in the Central Jail, Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu for the purpose of preventing him from indulging
in activities falling within the mischief of Prevention of Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS),
1988.
02. Pursuant to detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/146/2025 dated
07.08.2025, the petitioner came to be detained and taken into
custody on 11.08.2025 from which date onwards one-year period
of the petitioner’s detention commenced. By that reference, the
petitioner has now served almost six months in preventive
detention custody.
03. The detention of the petitioner came to take place in the backdrop
of the fact that in his childhood, the petitioner’s father, who was in
the Indian Army, is said to have lost his life at the hands of
militants. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother abandoned him and
remarried, leaving him only under the care and custody of his
grandparents, who brought him up and ensured that he was
imparted education up to 9th Class from Government High School,
Furrah.
04. In his writ petition, the petitioner has assailed his detention on
the grounds as set out in para 8 (i) to (xviii).
05. Before the institution of the writ petition, the petitioner, acting
through his grandmother, had submitted a written representation
dated 15.08.2025 addressed to the respondent No. 2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir which is said to have been received by the
respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.
06. There is no denial to the fact that the representation was duly
received by the respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir as otherwise, said representation would not have been
forwarded from the end of the respondent No. 2-Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir to the Home Department, Government of
UT of Jammu and Kashmir nor would the disposal of the
representation have taken place at the end of the respondent No.
2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir on 26.09.2025.
07. The respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner Kashmir in his
representation disposal order dated 26.09.2025 does not spell out
the date on which he received at his end the representation of the
petitioner submitted through his grandmother for consideration.
That date of receipt of representation is relevant to determine as to
whether the consideration and consequent disposal of the
representation made by a detenu against his/her detention has
taken place without any unwarranted delay or not, particularly
when the petitioner’s representation is dated 15.08.2025, with its
disposal taking place on 26.09.2025 and the petitioner being
informed about the fate of his representation on 10.11.2025.
08. The time lag between these two events i.e. the date of
consideration of the representation and the date of communication
of its disposal to the petitioner is over-stretched and defeats the
very purpose for which the constitutional right of making a
representation is exercised by a detenu. By delayed consideration
of a representation and delayed communication of the
representation’s outcome takes place, a detenu continues to be in
state of custody at the cost of his/her most cherished fundamental
right to personal liberty. It is in this context that the element of
urgency and exigency is read into the requirement of expeditious
consideration of a representation and its prompt communication
to the detenue which is an in built constitutional safeguard in the
jurisprudence of preventive detention custody in the context of
Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
09. In the light of the aforesaid serious legal lacuna affecting the
detention of the petitioner in the context of treatment of his
representation, this Court is inclined to intervene and quash the
detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/146/2025 dated 07.08.2025
along with consequent confirmation/approval order and directs
restoration of personal liberty of the petitioner forthwith, unless he
is required in connection with any other case. The Superintendent
concerned Jail to release the petitioner from his preventive
custody.
10. Disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
11.02.2026
Bisma Jan.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No