JUDGMENT :

A. P. Thaker, J.

1. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 29.11.2021 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short "NDPS Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenu under the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya assisted by the learned advocate Mr.Kirit Chaudhari for the detenue and learned AGP Ms.Moxa Thakkar for the respondent State and perused the materials placed on record.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya for the detenu has vehemently submitted that the detenu was arrested in connection with the offence registered under the NDPS Act solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. It is submitted that the detenu is holding a Medical License and a Medical Store. He has submitted that the detenu was released on anticipatory bail by this Court, considering the facts that there was no connecting materials available against the detenu for the alleged offence under the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the alleged offence is a solitary offence and the offence alleged against the detenu is regarding selling of cough syrup in huge quantity to the other accused. He has submitted that the documents supplied to the detenu is not legible one and no proper document was supplied to the detenu. He has also vehemently submitted that the provisions contained in the prevention of Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in NDPS Act has not been followed. He has also submitted that the FIR was filed on 04.10.2020 and the detention order has been passed on 29.11.2021. He has also submitted that there is no subjective satisfaction of the authority. He has also submitted that since insufficient material was found by this Court, this Court has enlarged the detenu on anticipatory bail. He has submitted that the entire act is technical one and therefore it needs to be strictly interpreted. He has also submitted that there is no live line between the alleged offence with the detenu. He has also submitted that this is not a case of affecting the public order. He has submitted that the preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the Statute in question. He has submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the detaining authority is merit less and since there is no strict compliance with the provisions of the act in question, the detention order itself is illegal ab initio. He has prayed to allow the petition. He has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.08.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.8091 of 2020 in case of Vijay alias Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patani (Kaptiywala) V.s State of Gujarat. He has relied upon the following decisions:-

(1) In case of Rajesh Nagoraj Parate Through Wife Lalitaben Rajesh Parate v. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-HC 243036.

(2) In case of Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana reported in [2021] 0 AIR(SC) 3656.

4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Moxa Thakkar has supported the impugned order passed by the authority and submitted that the offence against the detenu is under the NDPS Act and considering the effect of the Narcotic Drugs, the authority has properly passed the impugned order and which deserves to be upheld by this Court.

5. In case of Banka Sneha Sheela (Supra) the Apex Court in para 14 has observed as under:-

"14. There can be no doubt that what is alleged in the five FIRs pertain to the realm of 'law and order' in that various acts of cheating are ascribed to the Detenu which are punishable under the three sections of the Indian Penal Code set out in the five FIRs. A close reading of the Detention Order would make it clear that the reason for the said Order is not any apprehension of widespread public ha