The detaining authority must supply the vital and material documents to enable the detainee to make an effective representation, failing which the detention order may be quashed for violating the detainee's constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

The short point arising for consideration is as to whether the order of detention, as prayed for, needs to be quashed on the ground of non-supply of document relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the order of detention or not.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a resident of Tripura.

3. Allegedly, he engages himself in the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which activities the authorities have found to be prejudicial to public interest and, as such, his detention in the attending facts and circumstances is warranted. Consequently, vide order dated 26.12.2018 the appropriate authority under the provision of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 issued an order under Section 3 directing detention of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order with respect to the record relied upon is reproduced as under:

“Whereas, on perusal of records as submitted by the Director General of Police, Tripura it appears that Shri Shri Shyam Manik Debnath S/o. Lt. Denabandhu Debnath of Bishramganj, Amtali, PS-Bishramganj, Sepahijala, Tripura was involved in the following cases:-

(i) P.R. Bari PS case No. 143/18 dated 12/10/2018 u/s 20(b)(ii)(c).08/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

(ii) Ranirbazar PS case No. 2018RNB065 dated 15.10.2018 u/s 468/471/198 of IPC read with section 8/22©/29 of NDPS Act, 1985”

This order dated 26.12.2018 passed by Addl. Secretary to the Government of Tripura was served upon the petitioner on 15.01.2019. It is a matter of record that document whatsoever forming part of the opinion leading to the detention was ever supplied to the petitioner, despite his written request dated 18.01.2019 specifically praying for supply of copy of the FIRs, for the petitioner had denied his involvement or any connection with respect thereto. The petitioner’s representation stands rejected by one word using an expression “reject the prayer” without assigning any reason(s) or dealing with anyone of the contentions raised by him.

4. In John Martin Vrs. State of West Bengal : (1975) 3 SCC 836 the Apex Court held that “it is not necessary that the order of the State Government rejecting the representation of the detenu should be a reasoned order”, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

“4. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the detenu should be a reasoned order and since in the present case the order of the State Government did not disclose any reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the detention of the petitioner was invalid, The argument of the petitioner was that unless reasons were given by the State Government, how could it be ensured that there was real and proper consideration of the representation of the detenu. This contention, attractive though it may seem, is, in our opinion, not well founded. It stands concluded by the decision in Haradhan Saha's case (supra) to which we have just referred. It was pointed out in that case by Ray, C.J., speaking on behalf of the Court : "There need not be a speaking order. There is also no failure of justice by the order not being a speaking order, All that is necessary is that there should be a real and proper consideration by the Government". These observations must give a quietus to the contention that the order of the State Government must be a reasoned order. It is true that in Bhut Nath Mete v. State of West Bengal Krishna Iyer. J., speaking on behalf of a Division Bench of this Court observed that :"It must be self-evident from the order that the substance of the charge and the essential answers in the representation have been impartially considered", but if we read the judgment as a whole there can be no doubt that these observations were not meant to lay down a legal requirement that the order of the State Government must be a speaking order but they were in