1. The preventive detention of the detenu, ordered by the respondent no.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir) in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for brevity “PITNDPS’), is the subject matter of challenge in this petition for habeas corpus. Before taking note of the grounds of challenge taken in this petition to assail the impugned order, it would be appropriate to give brief resume of the activities of the petitioner, which have led him to preventive detention. As is born out from the grounds of detention served on the detenu, he is a habitual indulgent in the trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances. On 22nd January 2017, the detenu along with his associate was apprehended by a police party of police post Taad at Dalair post opposite Chatkadi. During search, brown sugar (Heroin) weighing 01 kilogram was recovered from his possession. In the result, FIR no.04/2017 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, was registered in the police station Karnah against the detenu. Although it is not coming out from the grounds of detention as to what happened in the aforesaid FIR and how the detenu came out of the police custody, yet on 25th June 2018, he was once again apprehended and was found to be in possession of 140 grams of Heroin. Another FIR, being FIR no.37/2018 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, came to be registered in police station Karnah. The detaining authority after arriving at a satisfaction that the detenu is an incorrigible drug peddler, operating in an organised and well-planned manner and thereby posing serious threat to the life and health of the people, particularly younger generation and with a view to prevent the detenu from further committing the offence(s) under NDPS Act, passed the order of detention bearing no.DIVCOM-’K’/67/2018 dated 4th August 2018, impugned in this petition.

2. The order of detention is assailed primarily on the following points:—

(I) That the order of detention is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the detaining authority, i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, has not been specially empowered by the State Government to pass the order of detentions under Section 3 of PITNDPS;

(II) That the detenu has only been given the option to make a representation against the order of detention, but has not been informed his right to do so;

(III) That the grounds of detention along with the relevant documents relied upon have not been supplied to the detenu nor officer executing the warrant of detention has filed his personal affidavit;

(IV) That since the detenu was booked in two FIRs for commission of offences under NDPS Act, as such, the normal substantive law of the land would have taken care of him and that there is no specific material taken note of by the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the detenu despite being booked in substantive law, would still indulge in smuggling activities;

(V) That the translated copies of the documents in the language understood by the detenu were not given which has affected the right of the detenu;

(VI) That the failure on the part of the detaining authority to fix the period of detention vitiates the order of detention impugned;

(VII) That there is lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority who has simply copy pasted the dossier of the sponsoring authority in the grounds of detention.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Mr. S.T. Hussain, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has extensively argued on all the points raised by him. Mr Asif A. Bhat, learned AAG was also heard.

In re: Point No.I:

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while elaborating his arguments on Point No.I, submits that the detaining authority, i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, is not a person specially authorised by the State Government to pass the detention or