ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

[1] The present petition is filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the detenue”) came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the respondent – authority as a Illicit Traffic as defined under Section 2(e) of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988).

[2] By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

[3] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

[4] Learned advocate for the petitioner has averred in his application that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate as to how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of detention ought not have been passed. It is further stated in the application by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and prima facie the order is passed mechanically.

[4.1] It was also apprised from the application that the impugned order was execution upon the detenue and presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Rajkot.

[5] On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.

[6] Having considered the facts as well as the grounds raised in the application and submissions made by the learned APP appearing for the authorities, the core issue arise as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law or not?

[7] We have carefully gone through the order passed by the concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was executed upon the detenue and presently he is in Central Jail, Rajkot. In the grounds of detention, reference of one criminal cases for the offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 with State Monitoring Cell against the detenue was made out.

[7.1] In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of the detenue as a “Illicit Traffic” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1988.

[8] Considering the impugned order, it appears that the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1988 is referred by the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be reproduced. The same reads as under:

“(e) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means-

(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;

(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;

(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or ranshipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances;

(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those provided in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or

(v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), other than those permitted under the Naroctic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder and includes-

(1)