JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has sought the indulgence of this court for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus with the prayer for quashment of the impugned detention order No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Jammu) for detaining the petitioner u/s 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 r/w SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988 and further directions to respondent No. 4 to release the petitioner from District Jail Bhaderwah on the following grounds:- (i) that the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned detention order No. order No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 r/w SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988 on the grounds that the detention of the petitioner is illegal, it is no longer res integra that while passing an order for the preventive detention of a person the detaining authority is required to spell out the reasons that he is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the health and welfare of the general public especially the younger generation from the use and occupation of drugs. (ii) that the petitioner has not committed any offence nor he is involved in the commission of any offence under the NDPS Act which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, but the respondents without the application of mind and without considering the material on record had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law and as such the same is liable to be quashed; that the petitioner has been provided the impugned order, grounds of detention, dossier along with the other documents which is not understood by the petitioner as the petitioner is a labourer who had studied only upto under 8th standard and he does not understand the English, Hindi as well as Urdu language and he understand only Pahari (SIRAJI) language and the petitioner use to only sign in English; (iii) that respondent No. 2 has no power to pass the order of detention because as per the Sec 3 of the Prevention of the Illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 if the order has to be passed by the any officer of the State Govt. that too has been specially empowered by the State Govt. for the purpose of this section but after coming into force the act of J&K Reorganization Act 2019, no power has been assigned to any officer by the State Govt. because there is no law prevailing in the UT of J&K which could justify the powers under Sec. 3 of J& K Prevention of the Illicit Trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 and on this sole ground the impugned order is liable to set aside; (iv) that respondent No. 2 has not applied his mind properly while passing the order of detention because as per the order of detention the dossier has been submitted on 29-09-2022 by respondent No. 3 and as per the order on the same day opportunity has been given to the petitioner to make the representation to the Govt. against the said order and on the same day the respondent No. 2 has passed the order of detention which clearly shows that everything has been done on the same day in rush and casual manner in order to falsely implicate the petitioner in a false case of Prevention of the Illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 and this clearly shows that the respondent no. 2 has not applied his mind properly and has passed the order in rush manner which can be reflected in the order itself because in such a short period of time it is not possible for the respondent No. 2 to arrive at logical conclusion w.r.t. detention of the detenu because the dossier which has been submitted by the respondent No. 3 is a bulk of pages which consist of 59 leaves and too has been written in different languages so it is not possible for the respondent No.2 to arrive at the logical conclusion on the same day and even for the sake of the argument he/respondent no. 2 has gave the finding on the same day by applying his mind then also it become a mystery how the respondent no. 3 and 4 also detained the person on the same day, all these facts shows that everything was manipulated in order to book the petitioner under the Prevention of the Illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988, that the respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order has not assigned any specific reason from the perusal of the Act which can be reflected that the order was passed legally and whatever was written in dossier that too have been repeated by the respondent No. 2, and this shows that they have not applied his mind properly and only this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside; (v) that the respondent No. 2 has neither confirmed the order of detention nor refer the same to the Advisory Board for its opinion because it is mandatory on the part of the respondent No. 2 to send the order of detention to the Advisory Board so that the advisory Board has to decide the case on merit and give its opinion and on the basis of that opinion the Govt. has to confirm the order but in the present case neither the respondent No. 2 has sent the same to the advisory Board nor that has to be confirmed by the Govt, it means that the detention of the persons is illegal and malafide on this ground as well, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that it is mandatory on the part of advisory board to note the sufficient cause for the detention of petitioner and copy of the same must be provided to the petitioner so that the detnue cam make a effective representation and the failure of not serving the copy to the petitioner will make the order of detention erroneous, illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be set aside. 2. Respondent No. 02 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has specifically contended, that keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the detenue, his preventive detention has been ordered so as to deter him from acting/indulging in prejudicial activities; the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any malice or legal infirmity, as such, challenge thrown to it is totally misdirected and misconceived; petitioner has concealed material facts, as right to liberty is not an absolute right and it is subjected to reasonable restrictions as envisaged under Article-22(2) of the Constitution of India, thereby, petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is contended, that that the petitioner has been detained on the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police Doda and after careful examination of the record found that the petitioner is involved in the repeated and continuous acts of drug peddling under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the detention order was issued accordingly under PITNDPS Act; that the petitioner is a habitual drug peddler involved in number of cases in NDPS Act which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda and other adjoining area and this illicit traffic has a deleterious affect not only on the economy of UT of J&K but is also responsible for spoiling the life of hundreds of youth; that the execution report dated 30.09.2022 submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda clearly reveals that the relevant documents alongwith detention order and grounds of detention were served upon to the petitioner/detenue and were also explained to him in the language he understands; the petitioner/detenue was also informed about his right to make representation to the Government if he desire so; that the FIRs and DDRs lodged against the petitioner/detenue were sufficient enough to prove his repeated and continuous involvement in NDPS Act and if he remains free in society, he would definitely indulge in such activities and would be danger to the health and welfare of the general public especially the younger generation of the area from the use and occupation of drugs. 3. M/s Prince Khanna and Sahil Bhardwaj, learned counsels for the petitioner have sought the setting aside/quashment of the impugned detention order by vehemently canvassing arguments, that petitioner/detenue has not been supplied the copy of FIR, recovery memos, statements if any recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other incriminating material collected by the police during investigation based on which the detention order has been passed nor its translated script in the language which is understandable by the petitioner which is mandatorily required under article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India for making a representation to the competent authority against the order of detention, thus the order of detention is rendered invalid on this ground. It is vehemently argued, that the manner in which the respondent No. 2 has passed the detention order clearly demonstrates he has used his authority arbitrarily to detain the petitioner which is illegal, the impugned detention order and the list of cases attached with it are in the English language, whereas, the petitioner/detenue only understands Urdu/Siraji language, the detention order was not read over and explained to the petitioner in Urdu/Siraji language which is a pre-requisite for maintainability of the detention order, the non-supply of detention order and all other documents in Urdu language violates the provisions of law as such the detention order deserves its quashment. 4. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned GA, while recapitulating the grounds urged in the counter affidavit, has strenuously argued, that the detenue/petitioner is a habitual criminal who has created fear amongst the general public and since he was likely to commit similar offences in future, therefore, it was important to presently detain him, as the ordinary law had no deterrent effect on him. It is argued, that the petitioner has no respect for law and has indulged in so many cases viz FIR No, 05/2020 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act of P/S Assar, FIR No 87/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act of P/S Chander Kote Ramban, DD report vide No. 17 dated 26.09.2029 of P/S Doda, DD report vide No. 26 dated 26.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda DD report vide No. 13 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Station Doda and DD report vide No. 15 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda, therefore, the notorious drug activities of the petitioner required to be kept under preventive measures, the detention order passed by respondent No.2 therefore, does not suffer from any illegality and the same requires to be confirmed/upheld. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the averments of the petition, counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, record made available by the respondents and the relevant law on the subject matter. 6. The 1st argument urged by learned counsels for petitioner is, that the detention order does not spell out the reasons for detaining the petitioner, the detaining authority has not applied its mind in exercising jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 which vitiates the detention order. 6. The 1st argument urged by learned counsels for petitioner is, that the detention order does not spell out the reasons for detaining the petitioner, the detaining authority has not applied its mind in exercising jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 which vitiates the detention order. It is pertinent to reiterate here, that the perusal of grounds of detention delineated by respondent No.2 clearly spell out that petitioner/detenu has been indicted in cases FIR No 05/2020 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act of P/S Assar, FIR No 87/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act of P/S Chander Kote Ramban, DD report vide No. 17 dated 26.09.2029 of P/S Doda, DD report vide No. 26 dated 26.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda, DD report vide No. 13 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Station Doda and DD report vide No. 15 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda, wherein, the criminal activities of the petitioner have been clearly specified, as the petitioner is a habitual drug peddler involved in number of cases in NDPS Act which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda and other adjoining area, the criminal actvities of the petitioner are also responsible for spoiling the life of hundreds of youth. The arguments of learned counsels for petitioner that the detention order/ grounds of detention are without application of mind, are legally untenable, repelled, discarded and rejected. 7. The 2nd argument propounded by learned counsels for the petitioner is, that the grounds of detention and other documents attached thereto are in English language which were not at all understandable to the petitioner, who only understands Urdu/Siraji language, thus the petitioner was prevented from making an effective and meaningful representation to the Government or the detaining authority, therefore, the detention of the petitioner is illegal in the eyes of law, the detention order No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 therefore, require to be set aside. It is unambiguously reiterated here, that the detention order bearing No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner Jammu has been executed by Sub-Inspector Ram Rattan PID No. EXJ-986792 of Police Station Doda upon petitioner on 30.09.2022 without delay, notice of detention has been given to petitioner/detenue and contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention had been read over to the petitioner in English and explained to him in Urdu/Hindi language which the petitioner has fully understood and in lieu thereof, petitioner has appended his signature on the execution report in English, which clearly establishes that the petitioner in addition to Urdu or Hindi language also understands English, moreso, petitioner/detenu has been informed that he can make representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. The arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, are legally untenable, repelled, discarded and rejected. 8. The 3rd argument canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner has not been supplied with essential material of detention record which has debarred him from making effective representation to the Government or to the detaining authority which is serious infraction of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and the same vitiates the detention order. It is apt to reiterate here, that bare perusal of the detention record demonstrates that the impugned detention order No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 has been passed by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner Jammu on 29.09.2022 on the strength of material like dossier submitted by respondent No.3-SSP Doda vide his endorsement No. Conf/PIT NDPS/2022/21383/C dated 29.09.2022. The grounds of detention have been clearly delineated by respondent No. 2 which read as under:- “You, Vijay Kumar S/o Mool Raj R/o Ghat, Tehsil & District Doda, as per dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda do hereby be informed that you are a notorious criminal/Drug peddler/habitual smuggler engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation. Your criminal act is spoiling the future of youth of the area by providing/supplying the contraband substance to them and posing a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the economy of the UT. Your criminal act is spoiling the future of youth of the area by providing/supplying the contraband substance to them and posing a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the economy of the UT. Some of your criminal activities which are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances are enumerated as under:- 1. “. FIR No. 05/2020 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act of P/S Assan:- That on L6.O2,2020 in P/S Assar a docket was received from ASI Rajinder Singh of P/S Assar that while on patrolling/Naka duty at Checking point Assar, at about 1810 hrs you and your associate were found roaming aimlessly near the Naka point and were stopped at the naka for checking, you tried to flee but were apprehended by police party. During questioning you disclosed your name as Vijay Kumar S/O Mool Raj resident of Doda and other was identified as Shahid Umar S/O Noor Din resident of Dhandal Kashtigarh, District Doda. During your personal search a blue colour polythene was recovered containing 200 grams of Charas while 200 grams of Charas was recovered from the possession of your associate. Accordingly the instant case was registered at P/S Assar. After completion of investigation, the Challan has been produced in the Hon'ble Court. 2. FIR No. 87/2021 U/s 8/21/22 NDPS Act of P/S Chander Kote, Ramban:- That on receipt of reliable information police party established a Naka at Naka Point NHW 44 of P/S Chanderkote and stopped the vehicle ECO Van bearing Registration No. JK06A-0481 coming from Ramban to Chanderkote for checking and found you alongwith your brother in the van. During the personal search of both of you, 5.80 grams of heroin was recovered from you, whereas 05 grams of heroin was recovered from your brother. On questioning you both disclosed your identities as Vljay Kumar and Babu Ram sons of Mool Raj R/o Ghat, Tehsil and Dlstt, Doda. Upon this instant EIR was registered and after completion of investigation the challan has been produced before the Court of Law for judicial determination. 3. On questioning you both disclosed your identities as Vljay Kumar and Babu Ram sons of Mool Raj R/o Ghat, Tehsil and Dlstt, Doda. Upon this instant EIR was registered and after completion of investigation the challan has been produced before the Court of Law for judicial determination. 3. DD repot vide No. 17 Dated 26.09.2022 of P/S Doda and DD report vide No. 26 Dated 26,09.2022 of PP District Hospital Doda:- SHO Doda namely Arun Parkash Sharma entered report in Daily Dairy vide No. 17 on 26.09.2022 and I/C PP District Hospital Dcda & PSI Subash Singh entered repot in Dally Dairy mentioning therein that you are habitual offender and Notorious Drug peddler and two FIR's are already lodged against you at P/S Assar and P/S Chanderkote. Despite lodging of two FIRs you have not mended your ways and are repeatedly indulging in procuring/supply of narcotic substances thereby spoiling the career of the youth of the area especially in and around Tehsll Doda and your activities are highly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. 4. DD report vide No. 13 Dated 27.09.2022 of P/S Doda and DD report vide No. 15 Dated 27.09.2022 of PP District Hospital Doda:- SHO Doda namely Arun Parkash Sharma entered report in Daily Dairy vide No. 13 dated 27.09.2022 and I/C PP District Hospital Doda PSI Subash Singh entered report in Daily Dairy mentioning therein that you are habitual offender and Notorious Drug peddler and continuously involved in the supply/transportation of the Narcotics Drugs thereby spoiling the career of the youth of the area especially in and around Tehsil Doda and your activities are highly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It is evident from the above stated facts that you have not mended your ways and you are still actively involved in illicit traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Keeping in view your continuous and repeated involvement in criminal as well as narcotic substances cases which is evident from the above mentioned FIRs and DDRs. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda has recommended that you be detained under the provisions of The Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Keeping in view your continuous and repeated involvement in criminal as well as narcotic substances cases which is evident from the above mentioned FIRs and DDRs. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda has recommended that you be detained under the provisions of The Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is evident that you are a drug peddler involved in possession and transportation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which as per Section 2 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 means "illicit traffic". Such "illicit traffic" poses serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of Union Territory of J&K at large. Detention record further demonstrates that the order of detention dated 29.09.2022 has been served upon the petitioner/detenue on 30.09.2022 without any delay, whereby, copies of detention order (01 leaf), Notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of grounds of detention (03 leaves), copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents total 60 leaves have been handed over/furnished to the petitioner/detenue through Executing officer, Sub-Inspector Ram Rattan PID No. EXJ.986792 of Police Station Doda and receipt thereof has been given by the petitioner/detenue by writing his name in English which clearly establishes that the petitioner understands English language also. Moreso, the execution report depicts, that the contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention have been read over to the petitioner/detenue in English and also explained to him in Urdu language which he fully understands and in lieu thereof, petitioner has appended his signature on the execution report. In view of the detailed record submitted by the respondents, it is discernable, that the petitioner/detenue has been supplied whole of the detention record/essential material so as to enable him to make a effective representation against the said detention order before the Government or Detaining Authority and therefore, no right much less any right of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of Public Safety Act has been violated. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-supply of record/documents/ essential material to the petitioner in regard to his detention has violated/infringed his fundamental right and debarred him from making an effective representation, are far from reality, legally unsustainable, repelled, discarded and rejected. 9. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-supply of record/documents/ essential material to the petitioner in regard to his detention has violated/infringed his fundamental right and debarred him from making an effective representation, are far from reality, legally unsustainable, repelled, discarded and rejected. 9. Although right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution, which has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution, yet the personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, the framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 10. It is for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 10. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of detenue acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198 , points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something, which is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act, to prevent. 11. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978, guarantee safeguard to detenue to be informed, as soon as may be, of grounds on which order of detention is made, which led to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and also to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation against order of detention. Detenue is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation, which on being considered, may obtain relief to him. Detention record, made available by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that detention order was made on proper application of mind to the facts of the case and detenue was detained at the time of execution of detention order, the material and grounds of detention and also informed that he had a right to represent against his preventive detention. Perusal of detention order depicts its execution. It further reveals that the copy of detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier etc. Perusal of detention order depicts its execution. It further reveals that the copy of detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier etc. were received by the petitioner-detenue which were read over and explained to detenue in Urdu language, which detenue understood fully in token of which the signatures of detenue had been obtained. It also divulges that detenue was informed that he can make representation to the government and detaining authority. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. Detaining Authority has narrated facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda and other adjoining area and this illicit traffic has a deleterious affect not only on the economy of UT of J&K but is also responsible for spoiling the life of hundreds of youth. 12. Further, from the in depth perusal of the grounds of detention, one cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner/detenue actively engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation, as he has already remained involved in cases FIR No 05/2020 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act of P/S Assar, FIR No 87/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act of P/S Chander Kote Ramban, DD report vide No. 17 dated 26.09.2029 of P/S Doda, DD report vide No. 26 dated 26.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda, DD report vide No. 13 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Station Doda and DD report vide No. 15 dated 27.09.2029 of Police Post District Hospital Doda which made basis to book him under the Public Safety Act (the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988) so as to prevent him from acting in a manner similar to his past acts or engaging in activities prejudicial to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda. Further, the sponsoring authority has not only supplied the material, viz; dossier, containing gist of the activities of the detenue, but has also supplied the grounds of detention. All this material was before the detaining authority when it arrived at subjective satisfaction that activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda and requires preventive detention of detenue. Moreso, if in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention, on the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The same views and principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in Goutam Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 230 . In the present case, the petitioner-detenue seems to be a habitual smuggler engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the area as against him number of cases came to be registered in police stations Assar, Chander Kote Ramban and Doda under various sections of the NDPS Act. Since the actions taken against the petitioner-detenue under the ordinary law from time to time have not been proved to be deterrent, as such, the respondents had no other option but to keep him in preventive detention. 13. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. These observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another vs. Nabila and another (2015) 12 SCC 127 . 14. In the case in hand the petitioner has been involved in number of cases aforesaid. The petitioner actively engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation and tried to spoil the peaceful atmosphere of Doda and Ramban area and if he remains free in the society, he would definitely indulge in such activities and would be danger to the lives of young generation of the area, therefore, the presence of subject in society is certainly prejudicial to the health and welfare of the people of District Doda and other adjoining area and this illicit traffic has a deleterious effect on the society, as the criminal activates of the petitioner are responsible for spoiling the lives of hundreds of youth. From the bare perusal of the FIRs and DDRs the allegations therein against the petitioner, it is discernable, that the petitioner is a habitual smuggler and actively engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, the actions taken against him under ordinary law from time to time have not been proved to be deterrent. It seems that petitioner/detenue instead of mending his ways has continuously been indulging in such activities and has not shown any respect for the law of the land, as such, the petitioner/detenue has created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area, has become a chronic fear amongst the people of the area. Even the Advisory Board under J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 vide its order dated 07.10.2022 has confirmed the detention of the petitioner. Even the Advisory Board under J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 vide its order dated 07.10.2022 has confirmed the detention of the petitioner. Thus, the activities of the petitioner are of criminal and habitual nature of indulging in sale and purchase of narcotic drugs, hence, petitioner has been rightly detained by Respondent No. 2, therefore, the detention order issued vide order No. PITNDPS 23 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety and perversity, the same is affirmed/upheld. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the petition sans any merit, is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. 16. Registry to return the detention record against proper receipt.