JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner through his brother has filed the present petition for quashing the order bearing No. PITNDPS 37 of 2022 dated 05.12.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (for short the ‘PITNDPS Act’). 2. The petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the following grounds: (i) That whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority was not provided to the petitioner, which incapacitated the petitioner to make an effective representation against the order of detention. (ii) That the order of detention has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on vague grounds and the respondent No.2 has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention which is evident from the fact that in chargesheet arising out of FIR No. 24/2017, the allegations are that 42 mg of heroin was recovered from the petitioner, whereas in the dossier submitted by the respondent No 3 to the respondent No. 2 it was mentioned that 42 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and the respondent No.2 while issuing the order of detention has not bothered to peruse the chargesheet and has issued the order of detention simply by placing reliance upon the dossier submitted by the respondent No. 3. 3. The respondent No. 2 has filed the response stating therein that despite being tried for repeated commission of offences under NDPS Act, the petitioner after getting the bail was again found involved in the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and was posing threat to the public order as well as health and welfare of the people, as such, the detention order was passed taking into consideration the activities of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the dossier was submitted by the SSP, Kathua and after examining the same, the detention order was passed by the respondent No. 2 and the same has been confirmed by the Home Department vide order bearing No. Home/PB-V/3272 of 2021 dated 27.12.2022. The respondent No. 2 has annexed the receipt of grounds of detention, execution report, the order dated 27.12.2022 and the execution of detention warrants. 4. The respondent No. 2 has annexed the receipt of grounds of detention, execution report, the order dated 27.12.2022 and the execution of detention warrants. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit and has stated that the General Diary Entry No. 20 dated 25.11.2022 relied upon by the respondent No. 2 has not been provided to the petitioner. Besides, submissions made in the main writ petition have again been reproduced in the rejoinder affidavit. 5. Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not provided to the petitioner, which disabled the petitioner to file an effective representation against his order of detention. He further argued that the General Diary Entry No. 20 dated 25.11.2022 as reflected in the grounds of detention is vague, as such, the same could not have been relied upon by the respondent No. 2 while passing the detention order. He also submitted that the General Diary entry was prepared only to detain the petitioner, whereas the fact remains that no illegal activity has been attributed to the petitioner since 2021 when FIR No. 88/2021 was registered against the petitioner. He further argued that as per the charge-sheet in FIR No. 24/2017, during the personal search of the accused, 42 milligrams of the Heroin was recovered from the petitioner, whereas both in the dossier as well as in the grounds of detention reference to recovery of 42 grams of heroin has been made which clearly shows the non-application of mind on the part of respondent Nos.1&2. 6. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were provided to the petitioner, which is duly substantiated by the execution report as well as the receipt of grounds of detention, therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not provided to the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner has been found repeatedly involved in commission of offences under NDPS Act and taking into consideration the illegal activities of the petitioner, he was ordered to be detained under the Act (Supra). 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. He further argued that the petitioner has been found repeatedly involved in commission of offences under NDPS Act and taking into consideration the illegal activities of the petitioner, he was ordered to be detained under the Act (Supra). 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that reference has been made to three FIRs i.e.FIR No. 409/2015 dated 11.12.2015 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Kathua, FIR No. 24/2017 dated 10.03.2017 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Lakhanpur and FIR No. 88/2021 dated 27.07.2021 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Lakhanpur. 9. A perusal of grounds of detention as well as the dossier reveals that in FIR No. 24/2017 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Lakhanpur, it has been stated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that 42 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 24/2017 of Police Station Lakhanpur, wherein 42 milligrams of heroin has been recovered. In the seizure memo forming the part of record of detention, the weight of the contraband has not been mentioned. The copy of FIR is also not legible. The certified copy of the charge-sheet clearly shows the non-application of mind not only on the part of respondent No. 3, but also on the part of respondent No. 2, as it appears that the respondent No. 2 while passing the detention order has simply relied upon the dossier without satisfying itself in respect of quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner. 10. Further, this Court finds that the General Diary Entry No. 20 dated 25.11.2022 relied upon by the respondent No. 2 as is evident from the grounds of detention, was never submitted before the respondent No. 2, though, in the dossier it has been mentioned that the copy of the General Diary Entry No. 20 is enclosed. This Court says so because the respondents have produced the whole of the record in respect of the detention of the petitioner and the detention record does not contain the copy of GD No.20. This Court says so because the respondents have produced the whole of the record in respect of the detention of the petitioner and the detention record does not contain the copy of GD No.20. This further substantiates the contention raised by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has passed the order of detention in a mechanical manner as the GD entry No. 20 did not form part of record of detention. It substantiates the contention of the petitioner that the copy of GD No.20 was not provided to the petitioner. It is settled law that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority must be provided to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective representation and if the same are not supplied, then the order of detention is required to be quashed. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Apex Court in Thahira Haris V. Govt. of Karnataka reported in (2009) 11 SCC 438 and the relevant para is reproduced as under: “30. Our Constitution provides adequate safeguards under clause (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 the right to be supplied with copies of all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any delay. The predominant object of communicating the ground of detention is to enable the detenue at the earlier opportunity to make effective and meaningful representation against the detention.” 11. Be that as it may, even if the contents of the said General Diary Entry No. 20, as reflected in the grounds of detention, are taken note of, still this Court finds that the same are vague as it has been simply mentioned that the petitioner is still involved in selling of Narcotic Products as informed by the reliable resources and it is not forthcoming as to whom the said Narcotic Products were sold by the petitioner and also there is no mention of date, month and year. This Court, in case titled “Krishan Lal alias Lundi Vs. This Court, in case titled “Krishan Lal alias Lundi Vs. Union Territory of J&K” decided on 06.04.2023 has already observed as under: “It appears that these DDRs were prepared in quick succession i.e. on 01.09.2022, 12.09.2022 and 13.09.2022 just to detain the petitioner and in all these DDRs extra surveillance was ordered to be kept on him. But despite the extra surveillance, the respondent No. 3 has not been able to demonstrate/establish any act in which the petitioner has indulged after he was enlarged on bail in FIR No. 20/2021. The daily diary reports being vague and bereft of details of the activities of the petitioner which necessitated the issuance of the detention order, could not have been relied u detaining authority i.e. respondent No. 2 while issuing the order of detention. The issuance of order of detention on vague grounds deprives the detenue of his right to make effective representation against the order of the detention and if the detention order is passed on vague grounds then the constitutional right of making representation against the detention order, as envisaged by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would become a ‘Mirage’. The issuance of the order of detention on vague grounds would amount to be an arbitrary exercise of power by the detaining authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan V. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another reported as (1989) 3 SCC 590 has held that the order of detention passed on vague grounds deprives the petitioner of his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention.” 12. It appears that the GD No. 20 was entered only for the purpose of detaining the petitioner under the Act as the last illegal activity attributed to the petitioner is in respect of FIR No. 88/2021 registered on 27.07.2021 and thereafter no illegal activity has been attributed to the petitioner. In case the petitioner was required to be detained, the respondents ought to have immediately proceeded for issuing the detention order against the petitioner, but the respondents have waited for almost one year and five months for issuance of the detention order. This gap of one year and five months breaks the proximity between the alleged activity and the purpose of the detention order. It is profitable to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case titled Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik Vs. This gap of one year and five months breaks the proximity between the alleged activity and the purpose of the detention order. It is profitable to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case titled Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported as (2012) 8 SCC 233 in which the Apex Court has held as under: “26. 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 the order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between 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. 27. 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…..” 13. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 37 of 2022 dated 05.12.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 is required to be quashed. 14. Ordered accordingly. 15. The petitioner be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Record be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.