GOLAM HOSSAIN @ GOLAB @ GOLAP Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing the present petition in the nature of habeas corpus the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as the PITNDPS Act) issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Tripura vide Order No.F.15(09)-PD/2018(P- 1)/4200 dated 26.12.2018.

(2.) The facts, which are said to have led to the quashing of the detention order, are briefly summarized here-under:

(3.) After his arrest, the investigating agency had raided the residential house of the petitioner and nothing incriminating materials were recovered and further no contraband articles were seized and found in the possession of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was issued with the detention order dated 26.12.2018 as aforestated without any reason and ground with malafide intention [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. It is stated by the petitioner that while passing the detention order the issuing authority had only made reference to all the criminal cases as aforestated and the said detention order was passed on the basis of the proposal of the Director General of Police, Tripura and other supporting documents, but, nothing was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner about the allegations and the grounds and the proposal made by the Director General of Police for such detention, the petitioner was never served with any copy of the documents or proposal signed by the Director General of Police on which the order of detention was made. The petitioner has further stated that the detention order never spoke of anything of the relevant facts or factors that prompted the authority concerned to issue the order of detention, as such, the said order was passed most mechanically and the same is liable to be quashed. No materials were supplied by the detaining authority stating the basic ground for such detention. It is further stated that due to non supply of relevant materials and documents, the petitioner was deprived of making effective representation. However, the petitioner had submitted representation on 18.02.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura through the Superintendent of Jail, Udaipur against the said order of detention dated 26.12.2018 stating inter alia that he was an innocent person and in no way involved with the allegations levelled against him. Further, it was stated that there was no whisper in the order that what type of proposal or what type of supporting documents on the basis of which the authority passed the order of detention and what were those sufficient grounds that prompted the authority concerned to issue the detention order of the petitioner under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of PITNDPS Act.