JUDGMENT :

AHUL BHARTI, J.

01. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

02. Perused the writ petition and the annexures therewith and also the counter affidavit filed in response.

03. The detention record produced also scanned thoroughly.

04. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, by virtue of an Order No. DIVCOM- “K”/1 21/2025 dated 15.07.2025, came to order preventive detention of the petitioner under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short “PIT NDPS Act, 1988”) against the petitioner thereby ordering his preventive detention on account of his alleged state of activities being found to be within the scope of mischief of PIT NDPS Act, 1988, which led to the arrest and confinement of the petitioner on 17.07.2025 and from said state of custody, the petitioner came forward with the institution of present writ petition on 29.07.2025 acting through his wife Rohee Begum thereby seeking a writ of habeas corpus to earn restoration of his personal liberty.

05. A case for preventive detention of the petitioner was processed and put forth by the Superintendent of Police (SP), Sopore by submitting a dossier accompanying communication No. Pross/PIT-NDPS/2025/30650 dated 14.06.2025, in which dossier the petitioner came to be referred as being involved in two criminal cases relatable to FIR No. 94/2023 under sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985 of the Police Station Dangiwacha and FIR No. 01/2025 under sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985 also of the Police Station Dangiwacha.

06. On the basis of the petitioner’s involvement in said two criminal cases undergoing trial in which the petitioner is on bail, the petitioner came to be reckoned as a person still clandestinely and discreetly involved in illegal activities related to drugs but not enabling a basis for the police to agitate for seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the petitioner and, thus, necessitating his preventive detention.

07. With the dossier so submitted to him, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir purportedly formulated the grounds of detention by repeat of the contents of the dossier and, therefore, ordering the petitioner’s preventive detention Order No. DIVCOM- “K”/121/2025 dated 15.07.2025 to be arrested and lodged in the District Jail, Udhampur for a period to be specified by the Govt., which came to be so specified for a period of one year with effect from 17.07.2025 till 16.07.2026 in terms of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1514 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 based upon the Advisory Board’s opinion report dated 30.07.2025 justifying the petitioner’s preventive detention being based on sufficient grounds.

08. The petitioner had come to be taken into custody on 17.07.2025 by ASI Gurjeet Singh, No. 69/KGM, PID No. EXK-981536 of DPL, Sopore who handed over the person of the petitioner to the District Jail, Udhampur.

09. The petitioner purportedly came to be provided with all the documents being notice of detention order and the entire material/relevant documents and also explained to the petitioner in Urdu/Kashmiri language, besides apprising the petitioner about his right to make a representation to the Govt.

10. The petitioner’s receipt with respect to delivery of documents as referred in the Execution Report also came to be taken as an exhibit of procedural compliance in which receipt the petitioner is also acknowledging that he has been apprised/informed about his right to make a representation to the Govt. against the detention order.

11. Therefore, there is a clear omission of notice to the petitioner about his right to make a representation against his detention to the detention order making authority which being the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir and on this singular ground the entire detention related exercise of jurisdiction at the end of the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir got instantly punctured by seriously jeopardizing right of the petitioner to m