EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 27: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court Srinagar Wing upheld the PSA of Manzoor Sheikh, an alleged timber smuggler.
The petitioner challenged order of detention bearing No.DMB/PSA/04 of 2020 dated 29th of August, 2020, passed by District Magistrate, Budgam (the detaining authority), whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the preservation of forest wealth.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that undoubtedly, as per the material collected and supplied by the Forest Authorities, the petitioner is a habitual smuggler of timber and has over the period of time engaged in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled timber in his possession. The communication of Divisional Forest Officer, Pir Panjal Forest Division, Budgam, submitted to the detaining authority is quite elaborate and contains, in detail, the activities of the petitioner aimed at inflicting damage to the forests. As per three FIRs registered against him from time to time, the petitioner is alleged to have stolen 775 cft. volume of Kail/Fir wood from the forests and caused damage to the tune of Rs 5,62,500. The manner in which he has organized his gang and conducts his activities leaves one without any doubt that the petitioner is a habitual smuggler and three criminal cases registered against him have not proved any deterrence to him.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that it is true that preventive detention is resorted to only when emergency of the situation warrants such action, otherwise the law of the land is sufficient to deal with those indulging in criminal activities including criminal act of causing damage to the forests by indulging in timber smuggling. It is true that the DFO concerned provided a dossier of activities of the petitioner to the detaining authority on 20th of June, 2020, whereas the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority in August, 2020, i.e. almost after two months. It is not a case of delayed execution of the order but it is a case where the detaining authority did not immediately respond to the request of the Forest Authorities and passed the order without applying its independent mind.
It took its own time to examine the material before it and to derive satisfaction with regard to the necessity of placing the petitioner under preventive detention. The subjective satisfaction so arrived at by the detaining authority is not amenable to judicial review, as is held by the Supreme Court. With these observations, Court found no merit and dismissed the petition. (JNF)
|
