JUDGMENT : 1. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act of 1988), has ordered detention of Ashiq Hussain Marazi son of Abdul Hamid Marazi resident of Stadium Colony, Baramulla (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), vide order No.DIVCOM-"K"/72/2018 dated 11-10-2018. The validity has been challenged on various grounds, which include: (1) Non application of mind; (2) Non supply of material forming base for the order of detention. 2. The object and scope of detaining a person under Section 3 of the "Act of 1988", is to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of "Illicit Traffic" as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under : (c) "Illicit traffic" means - (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium, poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import, inter-State, export inter-State or transshipment of narcotic drugs of psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances otherwise than as provided in sub-clause (i) and (iii); (v) handling or letting any premises for use for any of the purposes referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv); (vi) financing any activity by himself or through any other person in furtherance or in support of doing any of the aforesaid acts (vii) harbouring persons engaged in any of the activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iv); or (viii) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance or in support of doing any of the aforesaid acts; except to the extent permitted under the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, permit or authorization issued thereunder." 3. The detaining authority in the order of detention has also recorded as under: "I am satisfied that with a view to prevent Ashiq Hussain Marazi S/o Abdul Hamid Marazi R/o Stadium Colony, Baramulla from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and for maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain him." 4. Mention of the words "maintenance of public order" would suggest that the detaining authority himself has not been certain or has not been alive to the legal position i.e. under Section 3 of the "Act of 1988", a person could not be detained for the acts which are prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order". 5. It is also clear from the order of detention dated 11.10.2018 that the detaining authority has recorded that the Senior Superintendent of Police Baramulla, has produced the material record but it is nowhere mentioned that the detaining authority had formulated the grounds of detention for deriving subjective satisfaction for curtailing liberty of the detenue. 6. In the grounds of detention, two criminal cases are shown to have been registered against the detenu but it is nowhere stated as to whether at any point of time any application was moved for cancellation of bail or as to whether detenu was admitted to bail in all such cases which shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. 7. Next learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole material forming base for the order of detention has not been supplied to the detenue which has deprived the detenue from making an effective representation against his detention, which right is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which in turn renders the order of detention as unsustainable. 8. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the non-supply of the documents would not prejudice the detenue as the details of his activities have been specifically made mention of in the grounds of detention. Furthermore, the details of past activities, as referred to in the grounds of detention, are given simply to show what was the past of the detenue, therefore, the documents which are connected with past activities of the detenue were not required to be supplied nor non-supply of such documents would cause prejudice to the detenue in making a representation. It is also contended that the power of preventive detention is different from punitive detention and preventive detention is largely based on suspicion and the Court is not an appropriate forum to investigate the question whether circumstances of suspicion exist warranting restraint on a person. It is also contended that the power of preventive detention is different from punitive detention and preventive detention is largely based on suspicion and the Court is not an appropriate forum to investigate the question whether circumstances of suspicion exist warranting restraint on a person. Besides above, learned counsel also contended that the requisite material has been supplied to the detenue so as to enable him to file a representation which he has not chosen to do. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents placed on various judgments which include judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in "Hardhan Saha and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors." reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198 and "The Secretary to Government Vs. Nabila" 2015 Cr. L. J 1364. 9. Detention record, as produced, carries a copy of the receipt which shows that copy of FIR (02 leaves), copy of grounds of detention and grounds of detention (05 leaves), arrest memo (01 leave) and seizure memo (03 leaves) have been provided to the detenue but it is nowhere mentioned as to whether statements recorded in the criminal cases registered against the detenue, under Section 161 Cr. P. C, communication No.CS/PIT-NDPS/2018/5649-52 dated 30.07.2018, communication No.CS/PSA/18/7115 dated 11.09.2018, dossier and other connected documents, as mentioned in the impugned detention order, have been furnished to the detenue or not. 10. Past history and activities of the detenue have been narrated in the grounds of detention but reference of the documents in the grounds of detention and the order of detention would suggest that it was imperative for the detaining authority to supply copies of the documents to the detenue, which has not been done which in turn deprived the detenue of his right of making an effective representation against his detention. Infringement of such right as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would render the order of detention as illegal. 11. The grounds under Article 22(5) means all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based. Nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenue. Nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenue. that is the plain requirement of the first safeguard in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The second safeguard in Article 22(5) requires that the detenue shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. No avoidable delay, no shortfall in the materials communicated shall stand in the way of the detenue in making an earlier, yet comprehensive and effective, representation in regard to all basic facts and materials which have influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention depriving him of his freedom. The detaining authority is required to communicate to the detenue: (i) Grounds of detention; (ii) All the documents referred to in the grounds of detention; (iii) All the documents and materials which the detaining authority considers while framing his subjective satisfaction; (iv) Detention order and also the police report or dossier, if any. 12. The word grounds used in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution means not only the materials or conclusions of facts, but also all materials on which those facts or conclusions which constitute grounds are based, such material has to be supplied to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation. The detaining authority is obliged to mention in the grounds as to on which material he based his satisfaction, failure to do so renders the detention illegal. To communication the bare grounds of detention to the detenue will not be sufficient unless grounds are accompanied by material which the detaining authority has considered and relied upon. For this, support can be had from the judgment "Nazeer Ahmad Sheikh vs. Additional Chief Secretary Home" reported in 1999 S.L.J 241. 13. Further, non-supply of the relevant material/documents, from which detaining authority derived subjective, satisfaction, would amount of violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, so deprivation of a valuable right. The Honble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case "Sophia Gulam Mohd. 13. Further, non-supply of the relevant material/documents, from which detaining authority derived subjective, satisfaction, would amount of violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, so deprivation of a valuable right. The Honble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case "Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & Ors" ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ), wherein it has been held: "The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenue to make a representation against the order of detention. A representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenue and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained, in his own language (1) In para 27 and 28 of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in "Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2184, has held as under: "27. There were several grounds on which the detention of the detenue was challenged in these appeals but it is not necessary to refer to all the grounds since on the ground of not supplying the relied upon document, continued detention of the detenue becomes illegal and detention order has to be quashed on that ground alone. 28. Our Constitution provides adequate safeguards under clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 to the detenue who has been detained in pursuance of the order made under any law providing for preventive detention. He has right to be supplied copies of all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any delay. The predominant object of communicating the grounds of detention is to enable the detenue at the earliest opportunity to make effective and meaningful representation against his detention. (2) It is also quite apposite to quote para 10 of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in "Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others", (1982) 3 SCC 440 : "10. (2) It is also quite apposite to quote para 10 of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in "Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others", (1982) 3 SCC 440 : "10. Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly merge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases : (a) all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than five days ordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention and (b) all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Relying upon this legal position counsel for the petitioner urged before us that in the instant case a breach of the mandate contained in Article 22 (5) read with Section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA is clearly involved because of three things that have happened, namely, (i) supply of Urdu translations of the bulk of documents and statements incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority was delayed beyond the normal period of 5 days without any exceptional circumstances obtaining in the matter, (ii) the alleged exceptional circumstances purporting to justify the delay and the fact that the reasons had been recorded in writing were not communicated to the detenu which has prevented him from making effective representation against his continued detention and (iii) Urdu translations of quite a few documents and statements incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority have not been supplied to him at all. As regards the first two aspects counsel relied upon two decisions of the Patna High Court, namely, Bishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors.(1) and Bishwanath Prasad Keshari v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2) where the Patna High Court has taken the view that not merely should the exceptional circumstances exist justifying the delayed supply of the grounds of detention but these should be communicated to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. Counsel urged that because of the aforesaid failure the continued detention of the petitioner must be held to be illegal. We find considerable force in these submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner." 14. The persons who indulge in the activities, which adversely affect the social order, are required to be dealt with sternly but at the same time adherence to law is imperative, violation thereof cannot be permitted at any cost. 15. Taking conspectus of the above discussion, the impugned order of detention dated 11.10.2018, being unsustainable is quashed. Further custody of the detenue shall be governed in accordance with the orders as shall be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in connection with criminal cases registered against him, as referred to above. 16. Detention record, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.