JUDGMENT

Nallini Pathmanathan JC:

Introduction

[1] Ramakrishnan a/l Nagasamy ('the detainee') was made the subject of a detention order dated 6 August 2006 ('the detention order') by the Minister charged with the responsibility for internal security ('the Minister') who acted pursuant to the powers granted to him under s. 6 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('the Act').

[2] In the application before this court, the detainee seeks an order of habeas corpus on the grounds that certain procedural requirements have been breached, which entitles him to be freed. The procedural irregularities of which the detainee complains are as follows:

(i) A breach of r. 3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 ('the Rules') in that there is doubt created as to whether the detainee was provided at the time of the service of the detention order with copies of Form 1 by the police officer serving the detention order;

(ii) A breach of s. 6(1) of the Act in that the Minister has failed to comply with a mandatory procedural requirement in that section requiring the Minister to specify the date when he was 'satisfied' that in the interests of public order, the detainee should be detained; this contention envisages a construction of s. 6(1) which imposes such a duty upon the Minister. Such a construction is in issue;

In the event such a mandatory procedural requirement is to be found to comprise a constituent part of s. 6(1) of the Act , that any 'delay' between the date of receipt of the requisite reports or the date of issuance of the order and the date of the Minister's 'satisfaction' be duly explained, in keeping with the reasoning adopted by the Federal court in Kumaran Suppiah v. Dato' Hj. Mohd. Noh, [2006] 6 MLJ 393.

Issue (i): Was There A Breach Of r. 3(1) Of The Rules ?

[3]Rule 3(1) provides as follows:

Where any person is served with a detention order, the police officer serving the detention order shall at the same time:

(a) inform that person of his right to make representations against the detention, order; and

(b) provide him with three copies of Form 1 prescribed in the Schedule and obtain from him an acknowledgement of the receipt thereof.

Salient Facts

[4] The detainee was first arrested and detained by the police on 8 June 2006. He was held in remand at the police station in Putrajaya for close to sixty days, and on 6 August 2006, served with a detention order dated 6 August 2006, issued by the Deputy Minister of Internal Security under the Act. In accordance with s. 6(1) of the Act , the Minister had received a complete report of the investigation from one Chief Inspector Amiruddin bin Masri, the police officer making the investigation pertaining to the detainee ('Amiruddin') on 18 July 2006 as well as the report of the inquiry officer (The inquiry officer is constrained by s. 5(2) of Rules , to inquire whether are reasonable grounds for believing that the detainee has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs after receiving a report from the police officer making the investigation related to the detainee), one Mohamed Faizal Bin Mohamed Fedder on 2 August 2006.

[5] The issue of relevance in this application is that of the service of Form 1 , which is the document entitling the detainee to specify in writing that he wishes to make representations in connection with the detention order. As stated above in r. 3(1) , there is express provision in the rules that Form 1 is to be served at the same time as the detention order by the police officer serving the detention order.

[6] The police officer serving the detention order in this case was Amiruddin. He affirmed in his affidavit dated 13 July 2007, that he served the detention order, the grounds and facts on which the detention order was based ('the grounds'), as well as Form 1 on the detainee on 6 August 2006. He states that the contents of the detenti