The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the detaining authority to apply its mind and comply with the detenue's rights, including the right to be communicated the grounds of detention and supplied with all the material on which the grounds are based.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

Pursuant to order No.DIVCOM-"K"/33/2016 dated 18.04.2016, Nazir Ahmad Lone S/o Ab. Gani Lone R/O Khankah Midoora District Pulwama (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been detained on 23.04.2016. The order has been confirmed vide Govt. order No.Home/PB-V/411/2016 dated 17.06.2016, the period of detention in the first instance has been fixed as six months. On its expiry, period has been extended for six months vide Govt. order No.Home/PB-V/1672/2016 dated 21.10.2016 which period has to expire on 21.4.2017.

2. Detenue by now has been in custody for more than ten months. The maximum period of detention in such a case is one year.

3. First it is contented that the order of detention is bad for lack of application of mind. The contention carries weight to prevail because the detaining authority while exercising power under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1988'), can detain a person so as to prevent him from committing the acts which fall within the meaning of "illicit traffic". The order impugned reveals that the same has been passed to prevent the detenue from committing the acts within the meaning of "illicit traffic" and "maintenance of public order". The words "maintenance of public order" as incorporated is beyond the scope of Section 3 of the 'Act of 1988' which in turn would mean that the detaining authority has not been alive to the basic provision.

4. The detaining authority while passing the order dated 18.04.2016 has also recorded that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Awnatipora, has submitted the papers on 01.3.2016 and a letter dated 19.3.2016, on examination of the same has derived satisfaction for ordering detention. In the grounds of detention, as placed on record, it has been alleged that the detenue after attaining the age of majority came into contact with various anti-social elements which include notorious drug traffickers, therefore, developed a tendency to accumulate wealth through illegal dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The detenue has turned into a hardened drug trafficker and used to operate clandestinely in various areas of Valley particularly District Pulwama. In support of the said allegations, as recorded in the grounds of detention, no material is placed on record neither it is known as to who were the anti-social elements and notorious drug traffickers with whom the detenue had come into contact. There shall be certainty in the allegations only then precious right of liberty can be interfered with. It means that deriving of subjective satisfaction for ordering detention has been a casualty.

5. Again in the grounds of detention it is mentioned that the detenue was apprehended on 30th January, 2016, during a routine patrolling when a huge quantity of charas (Cannabis) weighing 31/2 Kgs was recovered from his possession and a case FIR No.09/2016 P/S Awantipora was registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 20 NDPS Act read with Section 8 of NDPS Act. This position also appears not to have been carefully looked into because of the fact that the detenue when arrested in connection with case FIR No.09/2016 had applied for grant of bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Pulwama. He has been admitted to bail vide detailed order dated 22nd February, 2016. Copy of the order has been produced which is taken on record. Learned Sessions Judge, Pulwama, has observed as under:

"In the present case admittedly the alleged narcotic substance is weighing three kg and 500 grams of charas which is called 'bhang' i.e. dried leaves of cannabis plant. As per law relied upon by learned counsel for the accused/applicant, reported in Sunil v. State Of H.P., 2010 (3) CCC 605 (HP) (DB), possession of dried leaves of cannabis plant, i.e. bhang is no offence, as such, rigor of section 37 of NDPS Act is not applic