JUDGMENT :

A.M. Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC for the respondents No. 1 and 7 being the Union of India and Mr. D. Nath, learned senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities in the Home and Political Department of the Government of Assam. The respondent No. 6 stands deleted from the array of respondents.

2. The petitioner Babul Ahmed, as per the order dated 16.03.2022 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department on being satisfied that Babul Ahmed has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short Act of 1985) by continuously indulging in illicit trade in narcotic drugs even after his arrest on several times, was detained under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short PITNDPS Act 1988). Being aggrieved by the order of preventive detention dated 16.03.2022, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

3. It is needless to say that a preventive detention even under the PITNDPS Act, 1988 is also a preventive detention and therefore, all the rules and procedure that are required to be followed in order to place a person under preventive detention would also be applicable in case of a preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act, 1988.

4. Amongst others, in the writ petition, the petitioner states that the representation to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department was made on 18.04.2022. The records reveal that the said representation was received by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department on 25.04.2022. But the disposal of the representation was made by the order dated 20.07.2022 as per the order of the Commissioner and Secretary. Accordingly, the contention is raised that the delay in disposing the representation is beyond the permissible limit and because of such delay, the detention is vitiated. The petitioner raises another contention that the petitioner detenu was not informed that he has a legal right to make a representation to four of the authorities, namely, the detaining authority itself, the State Government, the Advisory Board as well as to the authorities under the Central Government.

5. It is a settled proposition of law that in case of a preventive detention, there is an inherent legal right bestowed on the detenu to be informed by the detaining authority that he has a legal right to make representation to all the aforesaid four authorities.

6. But, without going into the second contention raised, when we take note of the first contention, the relevant dates, as indicated above, to be that the representation was made on 18.04.2022 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department, the representation was received by the Commissioner and Secretary on 25.04.2022, but the same was disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2022. In other words, the disposal of the representation made on 18.04.2022 was made after a period of three months.

7. A stand is taken by the respondents in the Home and Political Department to the Government of Assam that upon receipt of the representation, the Commissioner and Secretary had called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta and it took more than one month for the report to be received from the Superintendent of Police and that the report/comment of the Superintendent of Police was received on 27.05.2022. But, in the meantime, the entire records were required to be sent to the Advisory Board for its consideration and the records were sent on 03.06.2022 and it was received back from the Advisory Board after 14.06.2022.

8. Even if the period for which the records were required to be sent to the Advisory Board is taken