JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. The present petition is directed against an order of detention dated 14.12.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner is ordered to be detained by the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of the Act.

4. The learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that registration of solitary offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under Section 3(1) of the Act. He has contended that the order passed by the authority is without application of mind. To substantiate his argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure “A”, wherein it is observed by the Director General of Police, CID Crime and Railways, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar that the action of the petitioner is against the public order and therefore, he is taken into the custody. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Act, which lays as under :

“3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.—

(1) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order.

(3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.”

4.1 It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that from the plain reading of the said section, it is clearly established that the authority is to satisfy itself with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him/her from engaging in Illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, if it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Such type of satisfaction is missing in the order. Further, it is submitted that the trial Court concerned has granted bail to the petitioner and that, there is no sufficient and/or credible material to support the detention order.

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the detaining authority has to consider from the material gathered that the activities alleged against the detenue is an obstruction to the public order and a reasonable inference is required to be drawn as regards the adverse effect of the activity on the maintenance of public order and public health. He submit