Sr. No. 3 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 2666/2025 Nek Ram @ Satnam Ag 53 years …..Petitioner(s)

S/o Chaino Ram R/o Village Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil and District Pathankot Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate Vs.

UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

24.07.2025

1. The petitioner herein has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order of detention No PITNDPS 52 of 2024, dated 21.12.2024 issued by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu-respondent 2 herein (for short, the “detaining authority”) under and in terms of provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the, “Act of 1988”)

2. The petitioner herein has urged the following grounds in the petition for seeking quashing of the impugned order.

(a) That the bare perusal of the order impugned makes it amply clear that the same is issued by the respondent 2, in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner and without proper application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. On this Ground alone, the order impugned requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

(b) That the grounds of detention are a verbatim account of the dossier prepared by the respondent No. 3 the respondent No. 2 has miserably failed to record its subjective satisfaction before passing the order impugned. In other words, respondent No. 2, is bound to record its subjective satisfaction that petitioner is engaged in the alleged act of illegal traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, and the same poses a serious threat to he health and welfare of the people. The bare perusal of the grounds of detention and order impugned makes it a ply clear that respondent no. 2 has miserably failed to record subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged in the alleged Act of illegal traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the same poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people. The order impugned passed by the respondent No. 2 prima Facie appear to be vacuous one. On this ground also the order of detention requires to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

(c) That the grounds of detention, the order of detention and dossier were not provided to the petitioner within the stipulated period as prescribed under Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and moreover the same was neither read over nor explained to the petitioner in the language which the petitioner understands. It needs to mention that petitioner is uneducated/illiterate and is not in a position to read or understand English Language and the grounds of detention were neither explained to him nor made him understand. The respondent did not supply all the relevant documents to the petitioner like copies of FIR and challans including the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, seizure memos etc. nevertheless respondents are bound to furnish all the relevant documents to the petitioner including the material collected during the course of investigation like statement of witnesses, seiozure memos etc. within the stipulated period enabling the petitioner to file an effective representation against his detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, before the concerned authorities at the earliest. It is pertinent to mention that most of the copies supplied to the petitioner are not even legible. Petitioner does not known Urdu language, and therefore, respondents ought to provided translated copies of the Urdu documents, to the petitioner, so that petitioner could made an effective representation against his detention under this draconian legislation, be