The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review at the pre-execution stage for challenging detention orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kushal Mor with Mr. Pulkit Bandodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Chodankar, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This is a pre-execution challenge to the detention order bearing No. F-No.U-11011/18/2021 (PITNDPS) dated 21.09.2021 issued by the respondents under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ( the said Act) seeking to preventively detain the petitioner herein.

4. Mr. Mor conscious of the limitation in raising a pre-execution challenge has urged the following:

(a) That there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the impugned detention order. He submitted that the impugned detention order is based on incidents forming the subject matter of CR No.16/2020 and CR No.24/2020. The incidents concern the period between August and October 2020. The two cases were registered on 28.08.2020 and 15.10.2020. The impugned detention order was made after almost 9 to 10 months and there is no explanation for such inordinate delay. The live link between the alleged incidents and the necessity to make the impugned detention order is therefore snapped. Such detention order is void and ought not to be permitted to be executed. He relies on Rajinder Arora Vs Union of India and others, AIR 2006 SC 1719. Gaurav Kanak Jain Vs The State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/MH/4538/2017. Md. Sahabuddin Vs District Magistrate, 24 Parganas and others, (1975) 4 SCC 114. S. K. Abdul Munnaf Vs State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 239 in support of these grounds though in the compilation submitted by him, there was a reference to some other decisions as well;

(b) The sole allegation against the petitioner in the two cases referred to above is that he was a consumer of narcotic drugs. The material collected and available with the respondents also, at the highest alleges that the petitioner was a consumer, there is no material about the petitioner dealing with commercial quantities or otherwise being involved in the trade of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. In the above criminal cases, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Special Court on 06.11.2020 and 16.12.2020. The bail orders also ruled out the possibility of the petitioner being involved in the trade of narcotic or psychotropic substances. The third case i.e. CR. No.11/21 registered in Goa is patently false and in any case, irrelevant because the same was registered only on 25.09.2021 i.e. after the issue of impugned detention order on 21.09.2021. Based upon all this, Mr. Mor submits that the case of the petitioner can very well be dealt with by the ordinary legal provisions. There is no case to preventively detain the petitioner. The draconian provisions of the said Act cannot be resorted to deal with the situation that can be routinely dealt with under ordinary penal law. He, therefore, submits that this is a case whether the said Act and the powers of preventive detention have been used for a wrong purpose. He relies on Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 1983. Rekha Vs State of T.N. TR. Sec. to Govt. and Anr, AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 225. and Banka Sneha Sheela Vs State of Telangana, MANU/SC/0493/2021 in support of this ground;

(c) There is serious contradiction about whether or not the petitioner at any time breached the terms and conditions of bail orders dated 06.11.2020 and 16.12.2020. The petitioner has not breached any such terms and conditions.

In any case, assuming that there is any breach, it was always open for the respondents to move the Special Court for cancellation of bail. In the case of other co-accused in CR Nos.16/2020 and 24/2020, the respondents have moved the Special Court for cancel