The detention order was quashed due to vagueness in grounds and violation of constitutional rights under Article 22(5), alongside significant delays in execution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner Tariq Ahmad Wagay @ Tariq Choudary (hereinafter called detenue) was taken into preventive custody under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) in terms of the order of detention bearing No. DIVCOM-K/328/2022 dated 23.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 (for short „the impugned order) and the same has been challenged and sought to be quashed through the medium of this criminal writ petition.

2. The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner on the grounds that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegation and passing of detention order on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable; that the detaining authority has mentioned one FIR in the grounds of detention, however, no specific allegation has been given regarding the involvement of the detenue in the cases mentioned in grounds of detention/dossier as such the impugned order of detention suffers from complete non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority; that the respondents have not followed the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and the same has caused great prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 is bad in the eyes of law; that the allegations against the petitioner in the dossier are full of flaws and same needs to be quashed.; that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a prerequisite for it before passing any detention order; that the respondent no. 2 has not furnished the relevant material like copy of dossier and so called connected material as per record furnished to the detaining authority by police to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation to the competent authority against his detention, therefore the constitutional rights guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stand infringed and for that reason and that for the aforestated reasons the impugned order vitiates and is liable to be quashed.

3. Respondents pursuant to notice, have not chosen to file their counter affidavit, however, record has been produced which reveals that the detenue indulged in drug trafficking and smuggling. The detenue was apprehended by Police in a case registered vide FIR No. 120/2021 U/Ss 8/21/29 NDPs Act at P/S Bahu Fort Jammu during Naka checking at JDA parking near Bahu Fort Jammu, on 16.04.2021 and at the time of arrest, 30 grams of brown sugar was recovered/seized from his possession. The material seized from the detenue was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, to ascertain its veracity; that the detenu was clandestinely dealing in illegal business of Narcotics and in order to carry out this illegal trade, the detenue was exploiting the immature minds of the younger generation by making them dependent on drugs and habitual addicts. The detenue was ordered to be detained in accordance with the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988; that the detenue is an active member of the drug mafia which is hell bent to spoil the life and career of young generation by selling drugs to them. The detention of the detenue has been passed in accordance with the law and all the statutory and constitutional safeguards were observed, as such, the impugned order being legal in nature, requires to be upheld.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, nonexistent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order on the ground that the detaining authority has not menti