JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-accused of an NDPS case has prayed for the following reliefs:"

A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction quashing and setting aside the action taken by the respondent No.3 purporting to be acting under the Home Ministry 9 respondent no.2) by holding that the same is having no powers under the Act and relevant notification in force.

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certitorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as the same are against the provision of law and in not consonance with the ruling laid down by the Apex Court.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal the further proceedings and investigation my kindly be stayed."

2. The case of the applicant accused may be summarised as under:

3. The applicant herein is an accused in a NDPS Case No.1/2004 instituted by the respondent No.3 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Nadiad. The case of the Department is that on 15th July 2003, two persons, namely Anwarbaig @ Raju and Hidayat Khan (brother of applicant), came on a motorcycle at the Sevalia College Bus stand to hand over a bag of "charas" to one Ganibhai of Vadodara, who had come at that place in a Maruti Car. The Officers of the respondent No.3 rushed at the sight and were successful in arresting all the three persons.

4. In the course of the investigation, the name of the present applicant came to be revealed as the main accused. He remained absconding for a period of almost eleven years. The applicant, thereafter, was arrested. He prayed for bail before this Court and the same was refused.

5. He has now come forward with a case that the entire trial is without any authority of law as the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to investigate the case.

6. The sum and substance of the challenge is that the respondent No.3 is falling under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, instead of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. The respondent No.3 has no legal competence and authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act for short). Therefore, the investigation and proceedings instituted by the respondent No.3 are illegal and unconstitutional.

7. Mr.Ekrama Qureshi, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant, while making submissions placed reliance on the following averments made in the petition:"

1. By way of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the investigation initiated by Respondent No.3 (Narcotics Control Bureau) which is a subject matter of NCB/AZU/Cr03/ 2003, (NDPS case no.2 of 2014) as being illegal, unconstitutional as the said respondent no.3 is not having legal competence and authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. As evidence from Pg no.77 and 78 of the petition the respondent no.3 is falling under the Ministry of Home affairs, Department of Internal Security instead of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Therefore the investigation and proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 is illegal and unconstitutional and requires to be quashed and set aside.

2. This petition was filed on 18.07.2014 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.08.2014 (Coram: R.M. Chhaya, J.) directed the respondent Union of India to respond to the petition by next date. Again by order dated 01.10.2014 this Hon'ble Court again directed to Union of India to file a reply on or before 30.10.14. Again by order dated 24.03.2015 the time for reply was given but no reply was filed. And ultimately after almost eight months the reply was handed over by respondent no.3, NCB, on 07.04.2015 to the Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing, and a copy of the same was given to the petitioner on the same day. But no reply by respond