1. Challenge to order No. DivCom-"K"/07/2011 dated 26.07.2011, whereby Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "Detaining Authority") has in exercise of powers under Section 3, J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, ordered preventive detention of Shri Shabir Ahmad Wani son of Ali Mohammad Wani resident of Wanpora Saria Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam (hereinafter called as "detenue), is destined to succeed for the following reasons:-

1. The detention order makes mention of material record such as "dossier and other connected documents" relied upon by the detaining authority while making the detention order. The detention order also makes reference to a communication received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam. The detention record reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to the detenue. The grounds of detention make reference to case-FIR No. 157/2010 under section 15/08 NDPS Act; FIR No. 06/2010 under section 15/08 NDPS Act; and FIR No. 68/2011 under section 8/15 NDPS Act, Police Station Chadoora, to have been registered against the detenue. The involvement of detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while making detention order. The record does not indicate that copies of aforementioned First Information Reports, statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid cases, were ever supplied to detenue. The material, mentioned above, thus assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It needs no emphasis, that the detenue cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5), Constitution of India and Section 3(2), J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, (for short "Act") unless and until the material on which the detention order is based, is supplied to detenue. It is only after the detenue has all said material available that the detenue can make an effort to convince detaining authority and thereafter Government, that their apprehension as regards activities of the detenue are baseless and misplaced. If the detenue is not supplied material, on which detention order is based, the detenue cannot be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply material relied at the time of making detention order to detenue, renders detention order illegal and unsustainable.

2. The detention order on the face of it does not indicate proper application of mind on part of the detaining authority. The detention order in the present case has been made to prevent the detenue from committing any of the acts within the meaning of "illicit traffic" and "maintenance of public order". A bare look at Section 3 of the Act reveals that the detaining authority is empowered to make an order of detention to prevent a person "from committing any of the acts" within the meaning of "illicit traffic" as defined in Clause (c) of Section (2). The detaining authority in the present case by mentioning two distinct terms i.e., "illicit traffic" as well as "maintenance of public order" has depicted total non-application of mind. It appears that the detaining authority has not been satisfied himself whether the activities of the detenue were coming within the meaning of "illicit traffic" or "maintenance of public order". It needs no emphasis that "illicit traffic" and "maintenance of public order", are two different concepts that may in a very small number of cases overlap. While Section 3(1) of the Act defines the expression "with a view to preventing him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of "illicit traffic", the definition of expression "maintenance of public order" is not gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document