ORDER : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Th. Jugindro, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri N. Kumarjit Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri P. Tamphamani and Shri A. Vashum, learned Government Advocates appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India. 2. The validity and correctness of the order of detention dated 09-08-2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur is under challenge in this writ petition. 3.1. Facts of the case as alleged in the writ petition, are that on 30-05-2018 at about 11:30 AM the detenu left his residential home for appearing before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Thoubal in connection with a case registered under FIR No. 60(5)2018 LIL P.S. u/s 148/149/189/353/354/34 IPC. While he was waiting for his case being taken up by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Thoubal, at about 12:05 PM, the police personnel of NAB led by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Th. Brinda arrested him and one of the police personnel started conducting body search upon him. He questioned why he was being meted out such a treatment. However, he was taken to NAB police station located at Imphal where he was interrogated and during the course of interrogation, he told the police personnel that he is a retired Government employee; an executive member of the Orphan Home situated at Lilong Authokhong and Thoubal District Kabadi Association and also, the President of Haji Halim Mahalla Committee. 3.2. While the detenu was being kept in the Lockup, the police personnel of NAB informed him that he was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for alleged involvement in drug trafficking in connection with a case registered under FIR case No. 37(5)2018 NAB-PS u/s 21(C)/22(C)/25/27A/29 r/w 68 Y NDPS. On the next day i.e., 31-05-2018, the detenu was produced before the Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur who remanded him in the judicial custody and since then, the detenu has been in judicial custody. On the next day i.e., 31-05-2018, the detenu was produced before the Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur who remanded him in the judicial custody and since then, the detenu has been in judicial custody. While in custody, the order of detention dated 09-08-2018 was issued but a copy thereof was served upon him only on 20-08-2018 by one of the jail staff without any communication of the grounds of detention and on that day, he came to know that he had been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (PIT ND & PS Act), 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).. 3.3. On being informed by one of his jail inmates, he submitted three representations dated 27-08-2018-one, to the Chief Secretary, Manipur; two, the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and three, to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein it has been specifically stated that the grounds of detention were not communicated to him at all and therefore, the order of detention of the detenu was illegal. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of detention, the instant writ petition has been filed by the detenu questioning it on the inter-alia grounds that the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India have been violated for the reason that although he was detained under Section 3 of the Act, the grounds of detention were not communicated to him with the result that he was denied the opportunity to make proper and effective representation. Moreover, he was not supplied with copies of the documents on the basis of which the order of detention was issued by the State Government. Further, it was pleaded that the mandatory provisions of the Act of considering the detention by the Advisory Board was not followed by the respondents thereby resulting in the illegality in the order of detention. If the detention is not reviewed by the Advisory Board, then the detention is bad. It was informed that there is no Advisory Board constituted. 5. On 29-10-2018 when the matter was listed for motion, this Court issued notice to the respondents and adjourned from time to time to file their response. If the detention is not reviewed by the Advisory Board, then the detention is bad. It was informed that there is no Advisory Board constituted. 5. On 29-10-2018 when the matter was listed for motion, this Court issued notice to the respondents and adjourned from time to time to file their response. On 23-01-2019 when the matter came up before this Court again after two/ three adjournments so as to enable the respondents to file their responses, this Court was confronted with a statement by the learned Government Advocate that High Court response is awaited on the issue of appointment of a sitting Judge to the Advisory Board. He produced a copy of the letter dated 10-01-2019 addressed to him by the Deputy Secretary (Home) informing that the Advisory Board had not been constituted, even though a letter dated 05-09-2018 was sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Manipur. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on the next day, ie., 24-01-2019. On 24-01-2019, the following order was passed: “Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned AG and Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG and Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA, seek time to get instruction relating to latest amendments if any to Section 10 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (PIT ND&PS Act), 1988. List the matter on 07.02.2019.” 6. The Registrar General was called to the Court proceedings and asked to verify on the letter dated 05-09-2018 referred to by Mr. Vashum. The Registrar General took time and did not give any explanation nor did he put up the letter for appropriate action for nomination of a Judge as required by law. The Registrar General, on the next hearing day, orally informed the Court that no such letter was received by him or his office. As prayed for by the learned counsels appearing for the official respondents who took time to seek instruction, the matter was adjourned twice. In the meantime, the Registrar General orally informed this Court and stated that by mistake, the letter dated 05-09-2018 was not placed for appropriate order before the Chief Justice. The Registrar General despite a copy of Government letter dated 05-09-2018 given to him in Court along with Government letter dated 10-01-2019 addressed to Mr. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, the Registrar General did not place the file for appointment of a Judge to the Advisory Board. 7. The Registrar General despite a copy of Government letter dated 05-09-2018 given to him in Court along with Government letter dated 10-01-2019 addressed to Mr. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, the Registrar General did not place the file for appointment of a Judge to the Advisory Board. 7. On 28-02-2019, when the matter was once again listed, the following order was passed: “On the earlier occasion, Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA submitted a letter of the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur dated 10.01.2019 addressed to him which reads as follows :- “COURT CASE URGENT GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: HOME DEPARTMENT --- No. 6/72(1)/18-H(J)(NDPS) Imphal, the 10th January, 2019 To Shri Th. Vashum, Jr. Government Advocate (HC), Manipur. Subject :- Submission of information in c/w W.P. (Cril.) No. 15 of 2018 Md. Masle Masliuddin Vs The State of Manipur & Ors. Sir, I am directed to refer to Jr. Government Advocate (HC), Manipur letter No.207/17/2018-GA(HC)/1123 dated 14-12-2018 to submit the required information as to Why Advisory Board to is not constituted till date. 2. In this regard, the Advisory Board is to consist of: (i) Chairman who is a sitting High Court Judge and (ii) Two other members who are qualified to be appointed as Judges of High Court or sitting High Court Judges or Retd. High Court Judges. 3. Home Department Government of Manipur proposed to Law Department, Government of Manipur for nomination of one sitting Judge of the High Court of Manipur to be the Chairman of the said Advisory Board. 4. Law Department, vide letter No.2/70/2018-Leg/L/01 date 05/09/2018 addressed to Registrar High Court of Manipur and copy also endorsed to Home Department, Government of Manipur requested for a decision on the matter. 5. Under Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur have vide letter No 2/70/2018-Leg/L/02 dated 05/09/2018 also written to the President High Court of Bar Association, Manipur vide letter No. dated 05/09/2018 requested to furnish a list of Advocates (with bio-data) who have completed 10 (ten) years Service as practicing lawyers and in the age between 45 to 55 years for consideration in the selection of Member of the Board under the provision of the Act. It is therefore, requested that, the Counter Affidavit may be prepared on the basis of the above information. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. It is therefore, requested that, the Counter Affidavit may be prepared on the basis of the above information. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Rashini Yengkhom) Deputy Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur.” --- From this, it is evident that the letter dated 05.09.2018 was sent to the Registrar General for his prompt action. When the matter was inquired with the Registrar General on the earlier hearing date, he merely stated that no such letter dated 05.09.2018 addressed to the Registrar High Court was received. Thereafter, he stated that by mistake, it was not placed for appropriate order. There is no explanation for the long delay at the first instance after receipt of the letter and further delay after being informed orally pursuant to Court proceedings. (emphasis supplied) The Registrar General is directed to submit all explanation as to how the Law Department’s letter No.2/70/2018-Leg/L/01 dated 05.09.2018 has not been placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for appointment of the Chairman of the Advisory Board as required by the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT ND & PS Act) 1988. Registrar General to submit the explanation by way of an affidavit on the next hearing date. List the matter on 14.03.2019 as first item. Copy of this order be furnished to the Registrar General.” 8. The Registrar General, High Court was directed to submit an explanation by the order dated 28-02-2019 as to how the said letter was not placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate order. In compliance with the order dated 28-02-2019 of this court, the Registrar General filed an affidavit dated 13-03-2019 stating that although the letter dated 05-09-2018 was received by the registry, it was not brought to his knowledge, because of which he could not place it before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. “IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(CRIL) No. 15 OF 2018 Md. Masle @ Masleuddin alias Haji Basiruddin .... Petitioner v/s The State of Manipur & 2 Ors. ....Respondents AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR IN COMPLIANCE OF HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DATED 28/02/2019 I, A. Guneshwar Sharma, Registrar General, High Court of Manipur do hereby solemnly affirm this affidavit. 1. Masle @ Masleuddin alias Haji Basiruddin .... Petitioner v/s The State of Manipur & 2 Ors. ....Respondents AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR IN COMPLIANCE OF HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DATED 28/02/2019 I, A. Guneshwar Sharma, Registrar General, High Court of Manipur do hereby solemnly affirm this affidavit. 1. That vide Order dated 28/02/2019 in WP(Cril) No. 15 of 2018, this Hon’ble Court directed the Registrar General to submit an explanation by way of affidavit as to how the Law Department’s letter No. 2/70/2018-Leg/L/01 dated 05/09/2018 addressed to the Registrar General requesting for nomination of a sitting Judge as Chairman of the Advisory Board under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [in short, PITNDPS Act, 1988] was not placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders. 2. With folded hands and utmost respect, I tender my humble and unconditional apology for failure to place the above mentioned letter dated 05/09/2018 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on time. It is most respectfully submitted that the same was unintentional, non-deliberate and was caused due to inadvertent mistake. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pardon for this lapse and such an act shall not be repeated in future. 3. The circumstances under which the letter dated 05/09/2018 of the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur could not be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice are narrated herein under. 4. During the course of proceedings in the present case, the Registrar General was called for in the court room and asked why the letter dated 05/09/2018 was not placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate order and directed to find out the latest status of the letter. In the court room a copy of the letter dated 05/09/2018 along with another letter dated 10/01/2019 sent by the Deputy Registrar (Home), Government of Manipur to the Jr. Government Advocate (HC) was given to the Registrar General. 5. Immediately, the Registrar General went to the Receipt & Dispatch Section of the Registry and examined the receipt register personally. The letter dated 05/09/2018 sent by the Secretary (Law) was entered as Receipt No. 2416 on 06/09/2018 and the same was marked to the Registrar General. Government Advocate (HC) was given to the Registrar General. 5. Immediately, the Registrar General went to the Receipt & Dispatch Section of the Registry and examined the receipt register personally. The letter dated 05/09/2018 sent by the Secretary (Law) was entered as Receipt No. 2416 on 06/09/2018 and the same was marked to the Registrar General. The file movement register of the Registrar General office was again thoroughly checked and Receipt No. 2416 was not found in the registers maintained in the Registrar General office as well as in the Registrar (Judicial) office. In the circumstances, the letter dated 05/09/2018 did not come to knowledge of the Registrar General and same could not be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. 6. On 24/01/2018, the Registrar General issued a show caused notice to Shri Roubul Valte, the then Superintendent (Esst.-I) to explain the status of the letter dated 05/09/2018 sent by the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur marked as Receipt No. 2416 dated 06/09/2018 as the same was not delivered to the Registrar General office. Vide letter dated 24/01/2018, the then Superintendent (Esst.-I) submitted that the letter was delivered to the Registrar General by the office runner Shri H. Tomba Singh. However, it is a fact that the letter is not found in the register of the Registrar General and in the situation, the same could not be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice promptly. 7. Even after this, due to engagement in other works, the letter could not further be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. In the circumstances, this Hon’ble Court gave direction to the Registrar General to explain the failure to place letter dated 05/09/2018 by way of an affidavit. 8. Finally, the letter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 08/03/2019 and his Lordship was pleased to nominate the name of Hon’ble Mr. Justice LS Jamir to perform the duties of Chairman of the Advisory Board under Section 9 of PITNDPS Act, 1988 and the Law (Secretary), Government of Manipur was intimated about this nomination by a letter dated 08/03/2019 of the Registry. 9. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09/03/2019, the Law (Secretary), Government of Manipur intimated the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur with a copy marked to the Registrar General about the nomination of Hon’ble Mr. Justice LS Jamir as Chairman and further nominated Shri Th. Ibohal Singh, Sr. Advocate and Shri RS Reishang, Sr. 9. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09/03/2019, the Law (Secretary), Government of Manipur intimated the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur with a copy marked to the Registrar General about the nomination of Hon’ble Mr. Justice LS Jamir as Chairman and further nominated Shri Th. Ibohal Singh, Sr. Advocate and Shri RS Reishang, Sr. Advocate as members of the Board.” 10. As directed, the affidavit is placed before the Hon’ble Court for kind perusal and it is most respectfully prayed that the lapse in placing the letter dated 05/09/2018 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice may kindly be condoned.” This affidavit is taken on record for further action on administrative side. 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after the order of detention being passed, the appropriate Government failed to make a reference to the Advisory Board within five weeks as prescribed in Section 9 of the Act and therefore, the order of detention is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In other words, it has been submitted by him that since there is no report of the Advisory Board to the effect that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the appropriate Government ought to have revoked the same and caused the detenu to be released forthwith which it failed to do so. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs. B.K Jha & anr, AIR 1987 SC 725 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a similar issue and held: “5. Neither of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the State deal with the question now at issue even in a remote way. They do not have any application. We only desire to add that in a habeas corpus proceeding, it is not a sufficient answer to say that the procedural requirements of the Constitution and the statute have been complied with before the date of hearing and therefore, the detention should be upheld. The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, there- fore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard. If a reference to an Advisory Board is to be made within three weeks, it is no answer to say that the reference, though not made within three weeks, was made before the hearing of the case. If the report of the advisory Board is to be obtained within three months, it is no answer to say that the report though not obtained within three months, was obtained before the hearing of the case. If the representation made by the detenu is required to be disposed of within a stipulated period, it is no answer to say that the representation, though not disposed of within three months, was disposed of before the hearing of the case. We mentioned that we were intrigued that an order of detention should have been made, knowing full well that there was no Advisory Board in existence to whom a reference could be made under the Act and whose report could be obtained as required by the Constitution. Such a casual and indifferent approach betrays a disregard for the rights of citizens and this has to be deprecated. We have no option but to allow the appeal and quash the order of detention dated August 7, 1986. The petitioner is now on parole. He need not surrender to his parole. In the view that we have taken, we have refrained from referring to the other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner”. 10. His contention has some force and merit, particularly in terms of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was intrigued that an order of detention should have been made, knowing full well that there was no Advisory Board in existence to whom a reference could be made under the Act and whose report could be obtained as required by the Constitution. In the present case also, the Government failed to constitute the Advisory Board as required by the Act at the time of passing the detention order. In the present case also, the Government failed to constitute the Advisory Board as required by the Act at the time of passing the detention order. The fact that the Advisory Board had not been constituted prior to passing of the order of detention makes it clear that the Government was not aware of the constitutional and legal mandate. Moreover, there are other grounds on which the order of detention can be quashed by this court. The allegation that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu nor were the copies of the documents furnished to him, has not been denied by the respondents which itself amounts to violation of Article 25(2) of the Constitution of India resulting in the denial of an opportunity to make a proper and effective representation. 11. It is well settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not the subject matter of judicial review and the court is not sitting as an appellate authority over it. The role of the court is to see whether the mandatory provisions of the Act have been followed by the respondents after the order of detention having been passed by the detaining authority. Considering the facts of the present case and in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, this court is of the view that the order of detention is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the order of detention dated 09-08-2018 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the detenu namely Md. Haji Basleuddin alias Haji Masleuddin alias Masle (55) years S/O (L) Hyder Ali of Lilong Haoreibi Turel Ahanbi Ubakthong Makha, PO & PS Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur shall be released forthwith if he is not required for any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.