JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

01. The petitioner through his mother has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of detention order No. PITNDPS 12 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, passed by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, vide which, he came to be detained.

02. Background facts of the case are that SSP, Kathua, vide his letter dated 25.02.2025 submitted a dossier whereby four criminal cases under NDPS Act were elaborated against the petitioner. Though, he was bailed out in said cases, but it was alleged that he was a habitual drug trafficker and was still active in Drug trafficking in district Kathua. Case was examined on the basis of various parameters and it was found that his continuous illegal activities of drug peddling were detrimental, as such, SSP, Kathua recommended for appropriate orders under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS). The respondent- detaining authority on the perusal of this dossier and recommendation of District screening committee has come to the conclusion that detenue was engaged in repeated Drug trafficking, which posed a great threat to the health and welfare of the people, therefore with a view to prevent him from indulging in similar activities, he passed the impugned order, whereby petitioner was directed to be detained.

03. Petitioner has questioned the impugned order, inter alia, on the following grounds:

a. That the Detention order passed by the respondent No. 2 deserves to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority while passing the detention order has not applied its mind and has passed the detention order against the petitioner dated 15-03-2025 in a casual manner, the detaining authority has in his detention order stated in para No. 3 that the dozier submitted by the respondent No. 4 that a case was challaned before the District and Sessions Court, Pathankot on 19-06-2023 in FIR No. 5/2023 under section 15/29/61/85 of NDPS Act which is incorrect, in fact, on the date of passing of detention order dated 15-03-2025. Petitioner was already acquitted of the charges under the offences as stated in FIR No. 5/2023. As such, the order of detention deserves to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be set at large.

b. For that the other offences in FIR as stated in the dozier submitted by the respondent No. 4, the case is still pending before the court of learned sessions judge, Kathua and the case vide FIR No. 259/2024 of P/S Rajbagh, Kathua which is under investigation, as such, trial/investigation doesn’t mean that the petitioner has committed the offence and his detention is in the interest to public. Moreover, the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty” should have been followed, as such, the detention order deserves to be quashed.

c. For that the respondent No. 1 has been approached by way of representation but the respondent No. 1 has neither communicated nor decided the representation pending disposal before the respondent No. 1 since 01-08-2025 and no consideration of the representation of the detenue dated 01-08-2025 by the respondent No. 1 is infringement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as such, the detention order passed by the respondent No. 1 is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. Copy of the representation and postal receipts is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-V. The respondent No. 1 is duty bound to communicate the reply and decision taken on the representation pending disposal before the respondent No.1, the respondent No. 1 has pigeon holed the representation which is against law. A citizen who is detained for the period of more than 5 months has the right to know about the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 in his representation nor communicated to the petitioner in the language he understands and the detention order is also vitiated as the material relied upon by the respondents has never been furnished to the petitioner which clearly shows failure on the