JUDGMENT
R.C. Gandhi, J.
1. Petitioner detenu Gh. Qadir Lohar S/o Mahawali Lohar R/o Dardpora Lolaab seeks to quash Detention Order No. 51 of 2001 dated 18.2.2002, passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) for preventive detention of the detenu for a period of 24 months, which subsequently has been confirmed by the respondent Government.
2. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds including that the grounds of detention has not been explained to the detenu in Kashmiri language, which language only he understands The detention, order has been executed after a period of four months five days despite the detenu was in their custody.
3. Respondents have not filed the Counter Affidavit, despite granting opportunities. The record of the detention maintained by the respondents has been made available by the learned counsel for the respondents for perusal of the court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no necessity to dilate upon other grounds as the delayed execution has not been explained by the respondents to maintain the detention order.
6. He has submitted that the detenu was taken in custody in FIR No. 13 of 2001 under Section 7/25 Indian Arms Act on 18.3.2001. The detention order was passed on 18.2.2002. The detention order has been, executed on 23.6.2002 after a period of four months and five days.
7. Without adverting to the other grounds, the petition is required to be allowed on the ground of delayed execution of the detention order. It is admitted case of the respondents that the detenu was in their custody and despite that detention order has not been executed within a reasonable, time. The respondents are under obligation to explain the delayed execution of the detention order. This point was in controversy in LPA No. 17 of 99 titled Gh. Rasool Shah v. State and Anr., which came to be decided on 10.8.1999 where in the delay was of 48 days. The respondents did not explain such delay and court allowed the Appeal. In another case titled as Nazir Ahmad Baba v. State, KLJ 2002 page 630, wherein the delay was of 67 days. Respondents could not explain the delay and the petition was allowed.
8. In the present case respondents have not filed the counter affidavit explained the delayed execution of the detention order. The contents of the petition in law stand admitted by the respondents being not controverted. The respondents have not explained the delayed execution of the detention order. Writ petition on this sole ground deserve to be allowed.
9. Perusal of the detention order contained in the record supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents for perusal of the court reveals that the order numbered as No. DMK/PSA/51/2001 and it has been despatched on 18.2.2002. It shows that the order was framed in the year 2001 and issued in Feb. 18th 2002. This speaks of the callous and casual approach of the District Magistrate in dealing with such sensitive matters, Petition is accordingly allowed and the Detention Order No, DMK/PSA/51 of 2001 dated 18.2.2002 is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the detenu Ghulam Qadir Lohar S/o Mahawali Lohar R/o Dardpora Lolaab forthwith, if not required in any other case.
