Jeffrey Tan J:

[1] This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to set at liberty the applicant who is presently detained by a detention order dated 4 April 2003 and made pursuant to s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (Act).

[2]Section 6(1) of the Act provides as follows:-

4

Whenever the Minister, after considering:-

(a) the complete report of investigation submitted under subsection 3(3); and

(b) the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted under subsection 5(4)

is satisfied with respect to any person that such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs, the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public order that such person be detained, by order (hereinafter referred to as a "detention order") direct that such person be detained for a period not exceeding two years.

[4] The instant detention order (order), the material portion thereof, reads as follows:-

BAHAWASANYA selepas menimbangkan laporan lengkap penyiasatan dan laporan Pegawai Siasatan yang dikemukakan, saya adalah berpuashati bahawa orang yang namanya tersebut di bawah ada atau sedang ada kaitan dengan aktiviti yang berhubungan dengan atau melibatkan pengedaran dadah berbahaya.

Nama Nombor Kad Pengenalan

KUMARESHAN A/L 770404-01-5323

SUBRAMANIAM

MAKA, OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberi di bawah Seksyen 6(1), Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985, saya dengan ini memerintahkan supaya orang yang namanya tersebut di atas ditahan selama dua (2) tahun mulai dari 4 haribulan April 2003 di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Muar, Johor atau di mana-mana tempat lain sebagaimana yang diarah dari semasa kesemasa.

Diperbuat pada 4 haribulan April 2003

(DATO' CHOR CHEE HEUNG)

TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI

MALAYSIA

[5] In that order was a statement that the Minister was satisfied that the applicant had been or was associated with some activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs. However in that order, there was no statement that the Minister was satisfied that it was necessary in the interest of public order that the applicant be detained, a detail observed and then brought to the attention of the court by Mr Gobind Singh Deo for the applicant. Mr Abdul Rani for the respondent answered that it was plainly stated by the Minister, in his affidavit dated 10 July 2003 (encl 6), that he was satisfied that it was necessary in the interest of public order that the applicant be detained, and that the Minister was not required to state so in the detention order Mr Gobind replied that it was "important that when it was served on the applicant that the order must be seen to have had been made in all compliance with s 6(1) of the Act, but that affidavit of the Minister was affirmed after the order Mr Gobind concluded by saying that to state in some subsequent affidavit but not so in the order that it was necessary in the interest of public order that the applicant be detained was a defect in procedure.

[6] The Act does not stipulate that a detention order must be in any particular form. For that reason, at first blush, i