AJI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in both the Original Petitions have been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter it will be referred to as PITNDPS Act'). In both the cases, the detention orders have been passed under S.3(1) and 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The detention is challenged on the ground that the Advisory Board under the PITNDPS Act has not given opinion regarding the continued detention and, therefore, the petitioners prayed that they are entitled to be released on completion of one year period of detention ordered under S.3(1) of the PITNDPS Act.

(2.) In O.P. No. 4642/96, the order of detention under S.3(1) was passed on 11.7.1995 and it was served on him on 15.7.1995. Subsequently, an order of detention was passed by the Central Government on 11.8.95 and that was served on the detenu on 1.9.95. The order of detention passed under S.3(1) on 11.7.1995 was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Art.22(4) of the Constitution for its opinion and the Board met on 23.8.95 and gave its opinion to the effect that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu under S.3(1) of the PITNDPS Act The contention of the petitioner is that the order continued detention passed under S.10(1) of the PITNDPS Act was received by the detenu only on 1.9.1995 and the petitioner did not get an opportunity to place his case before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board had no occasion to give its opinion regarding the sufficient cause for the continued detention in respect of the order passed under S.10(1) of the PITNDPS Act.

(3.) In O.P.No. 10258/96, the detention order passed under S.3(1) of the PITNDPS Act was passed on 11.7.1995 and it was served on him on 12.7.1995. Thereafter, the order of continued detention was passed under S.10(1) of the PITNDPS Act on 11.8.1995 and it was served on him on 12.9.95. In this case also, the detention order passed under S.3(1) of the PITNDPS Act was referred to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board in its meeting held on 23.8.1995 considered the question of the sufficiency of cause for detention of the detenu under S.3(1) of the Act and gave its opinion. The contention of the petitioner is that as regards the order passed under S.10(1) of the PITNDPS Act for continued detention, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to place his case before the Advisory Board as the Advisory Board had already given its opinion as early as 23.8.1995. Therefore, the order of continued detention is challenged.