JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. The petitioner through his wife has impugned the order of detention Bearing No. PITNDPS 30, dated 21.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Acct, 1988 (for short the 'PITNDPS Act'), so as to prevent the petitioner from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic and also to secure the welfare of the public at large. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioner was not provided with the complete set of documents relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. The documents are in the language which is not understandable by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been read over the grounds of detention order in a language which he fully understands. (ii) That the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in both the FIRs relied upon by the detaining authority and the Respondent No. 2 has not mentioned any further involvement of the petitioner in any criminal activity after the last FIR that was registered against the petitioner, therefore, the order of detention is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents have not specified the authority with whom the representation has to be filed and the same amounts to violation of constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioner. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents 2 and 3. In counter affidavit, it has been stated by Respondent No. 2 that the order of detention was passed by him after the perusal of the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar and after applying the mind carefully. The petitioner was found to be repeatedly and continuously involved in illicit trafficking of drugs. The petitioner is a habitual drug peddler and number of cases of illicit drug trafficking and narcotic drugs are pending against him. The ordinary law has failed to deter the petitioner from committing from any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic. After the petitioner was detained, the Executing Officer has provided the relevant documents, grounds of detention to the petitioner and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri language. He was also informed about his right to make representation to the Government against the order of detention. After the petitioner was detained, the Executing Officer has provided the relevant documents, grounds of detention to the petitioner and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri language. He was also informed about his right to make representation to the Government against the order of detention. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner was referred to Advisory Board for opinion and the Advisory Board vide its order dated 14.10.2022 has observed that there is sufficient cause for detaining the detenue. The Government has also confirmed the detention of the petitioner and the petitioner has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year. The Respondent No. 2 has placed on record the execution report dated 22.11.2022 and also the receipt of grounds of detention. The Respondent No. 3 has filed the response in identical manner as that of Respondent No. 2. It is further stated that the petitioner has been found to be involved in FIR No. 54/2019 for commission of offences under section 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act of Police Station, Kishtwar and FIR No. 53/2021 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act and 48-A of the Excise Act of Police Station, Kishtwar. It is further stated that it is because of the illegal activities of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 submitted the dossier for detention of the petitioner under the PITNDPS Act, to the Respondent No. 2. 4. Mr. Zulker Nain Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was granted bail in both the aforesaid FIRs and after the petitioner was released in FIR 53/2021(supra), no illegal activity has been attributed to the petitioner that warranted the detention of the petitioner under the Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was never informed by the detaining authority that he can make the representation to the Government. 5. Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior AAG appearing for respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is involved in various illicit drug trafficking cases and taking into consideration the illegal activities of the petitioner, he has been detained under the PITNDPS Act. She further submitted that all constitutional and procedural safeguards have been complied with while issuing the order of detention. 6. Heard and perused the record including the detention record produced by the respondents. 7. She further submitted that all constitutional and procedural safeguards have been complied with while issuing the order of detention. 6. Heard and perused the record including the detention record produced by the respondents. 7. From the execution report signed by the petitioner, it is evident that the detention order, grounds of detention, dossier and other related documents were provided to the petitioner at the time of execution of detention order i.e. on 22.10.2022 when the order of detention was executed by ASI Daleep Kumar. The petitioner in acknowledgement of the receipt of the documents has signed the execution report. Further from the receipt of grounds of detention, it is also established that the contents of warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue (petitioner) in Urdu/Kashmir language and he was also informed that he can make a representation to the Government against the order of detention. From the receipt of grounds of detention and the execution report, it is evident that the petitioner was informed and provided with all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority at the time of passing of detention order and grounds of detention were also read over to the petitioner in the language which he fully understood. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the complete set of documents were not provided to the petitioner and were not read over to him in the language understood by the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the petitioner was involved in FIR No. 54/2019 for commission of offences under section 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act of Police Station, Kishtwar. Allegations in the said FIR is that on 30.03.2019, at about 1945 hours, the petitioner along with his associate was coming from mini bus stand towards Hidyal and on seeing Policy Party, tried to escape from the spot but he was apprehended and during personal search, 65 grams charas was recovered from his possession. After the investigation, the charge sheet was produced before the court of learned Munsiff, Kishtwar and the trial is pending. After the investigation, the charge sheet was produced before the court of learned Munsiff, Kishtwar and the trial is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner was found to be involved in another FIR bearing No. 53/2021 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act and 48-A of the Excise Act, of Police Station, Kishtwar on the ground that he had kept cannabis and wine illegally in his shop situated at Hidyal near Mini Bus Stand for selling among the youth of the area and immature school students. 9. It is evident from the grounds of detention as well as Police dossier that these are the only two FIRs relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of detaining the petitioner under the PITNDPS Act. The order of detention was passed on 21.10.2022 whereas the last illegal activity attributed to the petitioner pertains to the FIR bearing No. 53/2021 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act and 48-A of the Excise Act of Police Station, Kishtwar, that was registered on 01.04.2021. Thus, there is a gap of almost 18 months between last illegal activity of the petitioner and the order of detention and this delay in passing the detention order, has in fact snapped the proximity between the alleged activity and the purpose of the detention order. It would be apt to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled, "Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra". The relevant paragraph Nos. 27 and 28 read as under:- "27) As regards the second contention, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in passing the detention order, namely, after 15 months vitiates the detention itself. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though there is no hard and fast rule and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf, however, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, it is incumbent on the part of the court to scrutinize whether the Detaining Authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a reasonable and acceptable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned. 28) It is also the duty of the court to investigate whether casual connection has been broken in the circumstance of each case. We are satisfied that in the absence of proper explanation for a period of 15 months in issuing the order of detention, the same has to be set aside. Since, we are in agreement with the contentions relating to delay in passing the Detention Order and serving the same on detenue, there is no need to go into the factual details." 10. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 30 of 2022, dated 21.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2, is required to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 11. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.