JUDGMENT 1. Pannuram son of Shri Ramswaroop Rajput, Phoola Ram alias Poola son of Shri Sant Lal Rajput and Kashmirilal son of Shri Ghamandi Ram Rajput were arrested in case NIB No. 2/1989 on 20 5.1989 under section 8/18 and 9(6) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Challan against them was filed in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad with the report dated 16.8.1989. They were in judicial custody when orders dated 13.9 1989 (Annexures 3 to 5) were passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (respondent No. 3) under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (the Act), stating that it was necessary to detain the detenues with a view to prevent them from engaging in purchase, transportation and concealment of narcotic drugs and directing that they be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Ajmer. The detention orders were served on the detenues in Jail and they stood detained under the Act with effect from 21.9.1989, under the custody of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer (respondent No.5), Vide memo dated 12.10.1989 (Annexure 6), the matter was placed before he Advisory Board (respondent No. 4) and after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 9(f) of the Act, confirmed the earlier detention and directed that each one of the detenue should be detained for a period of one year from the date of his original detention. The communication to this effect was sent to the detenues vide memos dated 14.12.1989 (Annexures 7 to 9), signed by under Secretary to the Government of India (respondent No. 2). Petitioner Bhagwan who claims to be the brother of detenue Pannuram and a close relative of other two detenues, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court on 24.1.1990 stating that the detention orders had been passed arbitrarily and that the detention of the detenues is illegal and liable to be set aside. It was, thus, prayed that the detention orders be quashed and the detenues be ordered to be released forthwith. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. Inspite of opportunities, no return has been filed on behalf of either of the respondents. 3. It was, thus, prayed that the detention orders be quashed and the detenues be ordered to be released forthwith. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. Inspite of opportunities, no return has been filed on behalf of either of the respondents. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. It is not disputed that right to personal liberty is the most valuable right granted by the Constitution, made Article 21 thereof. Before the liberty of a citizen be curtailed, it is necessary for the authorities to show that it has been so curtailed in accordance with the procedure established by law. Before orders under subsection (1) of section 3 and/or orders under clause (f) of Section 9 are passed, the authority concerned has to be satisfied that with a view to prevent a person from committing any of the acts mentioned in the section, it is necessary to detain him. Of course, this satisfaction is subjective one, but the authorities are required to apply its mind to all the material available to them at the time of passing of the orders in question. Not only no material has been produced on record on behalf of the State of justify the detention of the detenues, but even an affidavit of any of the authority concerned has not been placed on record. In absence of the material which admittedly is in possession of the respondents and which has not been produced in the court, it cannot be presumed that the detaining authority or the Central Government had applied its mind and was satisfied that the detention of the detenues was necessary for preventing them from committing the acts in question, especially when the detenues had not been released on bail and were in judicial custody for about four months before the orders of detention had been served on them. 5. For the above said reasons, we allow this writ petition, quash the detention orders (Annexures 3 to 5 and 7 to 9) and direct that the detenues be released forthwith unless required to be detained in some other matter.Petition allowed. *******