CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

This petition is filed seeking quashing of Annexure-A dated 27.12.2024 the grounds of detention order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and Annexure-B the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 9(f) of the Act.

2. The petitioner was/is charge sheeted, tried/being tried in all 12 cases for the offences punishable under NDPS Act, the particulars of which are as follows:

Name of Police Sl. Sections Station Crime No. Date of Case Status No. Invoked offence Acquitted in C.C.

1 Chamarajapete 307/2015 21.10.2015 20(b) NDPS Act No.219/2017 on 12.09.2019

3. Police Inspector of Chamarajpet Police Station through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chickpete Sub Division and Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, Bengaluru recommended seeking detention of the petitioner under the Act submitted the reports along with other records.

4. Based on that, respondent No.1 acting under Section 3(1) of the Act passed the detention order on the ground that since 2015 the petitioner is indulging in illicit trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances, procuring the same from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, he has high potentiality and propensity to indulge into such activities in an organized manner conspiring with his associates, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and welfare of the youth and students. It is further stated that violating the bail orders, he is indulging in illicit trafficking of ganja and narcotics, the actions taken against him under the relevant general laws are found inadequate to deter him, therefore to prevent him from such activities, it is necessary to detain him under Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus passed the detention order based on Annexure-A.

5. On passing such order, respondent No.2 referred the matter to the Advisory Board under Section 9 (b) of the Act seeking its opinion/report as required under Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner made his representation before the Advisory Board. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, respondent No.2 confirming the order of detention, passed order Annexure-B under Section 9(f) of the Act and directed that he be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention i.e. 30.12.2024.

6. Though in the writ petition, several grounds are urged, Sri Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted his challenge to Annexures-A & B to the following grounds:

(A) Respondent No.2 while passing order Annexure-B has not considered his representation dated 08.02.2025 independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(B) Annexure-B/confirmation order does not apprise the petitioner/detenue of his right to make representation to the Central Government against such order, thereby the order is vitiated.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

(i) Gracy v. State of Kerala

(ii) Jayamma v. Commissioner of Bangaluru

(iii) Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India

8. Per contra, Sri Thejesh P, learned HCGP submits that while passing order/Annexure-B, respondent No.2 has considered all materials including the representation of the petitioner. He further submits that the guidelines issued do not curtail the provisions of the statute, therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel are not applicable.

9. In support of his submissions, learned HCGP for the respondents relied on the following judgments:

(i) Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad

(ii) Mrs.Khatejutal Najma v. State of Karnataka & ors

(iii) Roopa v State of Karnataka

1 (1991)2 SCC 1

2 ILR 2019 Kar 1543

3 (1995)4 SCC 51

4 (2019)20 SCC 609

5 WPHC No.110/2021 DD 23.12.2021 (DB)

6 WPHC NO.3