IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved On: 04.05.2026 Pronounced on: 13.05.2026 Uploaded on: 13.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: full Judgment Dishant Goel ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Union Of India & Others …Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Abhay Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Astik Vaid, Advocate, Mr. D.S. Garcha, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel with Mr. Vinayak Atre, Advocate, for Respondents 1& 2.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents No. 3 to 5 - UT Chandigarh *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. The present petition has been instituted seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for directing the release of the petitioner/detenue, namely Dishant Goel son of Praveen, on the assertion that he is being illegally detained pursuant to Detention Order No. U- 11011/11/2025-PITNDPS dated 02.05.2025, purportedly issued in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid detention order for being non est and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

2. The facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PIT NDPS Act”), issued Detention Order No. U- 11011/11/2025-PITNDPS dated 02.05.2025 directing the preventive detention of the Petitioner. The said order came to be passed on the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority that the activities attributed to the Petitioner were prejudicial to the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and, therefore, warranted invocation of the extraordinary preventive detention mechanism contemplated under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act.

3. Thereafter, the aforesaid detention order was modified by Respondent No.2 itself vide order dated 13.05.2025. The modified detention order was subsequently transmitted to Police Station Sector-19 through communication bearing No. C-488167-Hill(2)-2025/6263 dated 14.05.2025 and was received by the concerned police authorities on 16.05.2025 for execution. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner/Detenue came to be apprehended and detained on 30.05.2025 in execution of the aforesaid detention order.

4. The record further discloses that, at the time of execution of the detention order, the Petitioner was served with a copy of the detention order, the grounds of detention, as also the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. The said documents were furnished to the Petitioner in the presence of Ms. Shruti daughter of Shri Parmod Chauhan along with three official witnesses, so as to enable the Detenue to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

5. It further emerges from the pleadings and the material placed on record that, subsequent to his detention, the Petitioner submitted representations challenging the legality and validity of the detention order before Respondent No.2 as well as before the Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act. In furtherance of the constitutional mandate contained under Article 22(4) and Article 22(7) of the Constitution of India read with Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, the Petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board for consideration of the sufficiency of the cause for his continued detention. The Advisory Board thereafter conducted proceedings in the matter and, upon conclusion of the hearings, forwarded its opinion to Respondent