JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the wife of the detenue, Sri Bahar Uddin, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Dimapur pursuant to an Order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department [the respondent no. 2] in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [‘the PITNDPS Act’, for short]. Challenge is also made to an Order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland [the respondent no. 1], whereby, the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 has been confirmed and extended for another period of 3 [three] months w.e.f. 28.06.2024 till 27.09.2024. Another Order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 extending the detention period for another 3 [three] months w.e.f. 28.09.2024 to 27.12.2024 is also assailed. Both the orders – Order dated 25.06.2024 & Order dated 25.09.2024 – have been passed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause [f] of Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act. 2. It appears appropriate to delineate the events occurred prior to passing of the Order of Detention dated 28.03.2024, at first. 3. A First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, Police Head Quarters [PHQ], Kohima on 20.12.2023 by one Bangduen Zeliang, UBI stating inter-alia that as per confidential report received by the Director General of Police [DGP], Nagaland from the Additional Superintendent of Police, CMS PHQ, Nagaland, there were few persons who were suspected to be involved in illicit traffic of NDPS from Manipur to Nagaland and further to Assam. There was direct information about involvement of a few persons named Anita Das, Rabul and V.S. Star, who had travelled to Manipur for the purpose of procurement and supply of contraband. It was informed that those persons might be using a vehicle bearing Registration no. AS-09/B-4440 for the said purpose, as per the source information received in that connection. The informant had requested the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima to register a crime case against those persons and to conduct a thorough investigation. On receipt of the said FIR, a crime case, Narcotic Police Station Case no. AS-09/B-4440 for the said purpose, as per the source information received in that connection. The informant had requested the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima to register a crime case against those persons and to conduct a thorough investigation. On receipt of the said FIR, a crime case, Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 was registered by the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police station, PHQ, Kohima on 20.03.2023 for the offences under Section 20A r/w Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘the NDPS Act’, for short] and entrusted the investigation of the case to one Zasilie Angami, UBSI attached to Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima. 3.1. After registration of Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 and in reference to General Diary Entry no. 03/2023 dated 27.12.2023, credible information was received that the suspected accused persons were proceeding towards Nagaland from Manipur side on 27.12.2023. The I.O. of the case was contacted to apprehend the suspects but the I.O. was not available and could not be contacted. Then one Officer in the rank of UBI was detailed with a team of Police personnel from South Police Station, Kohima and the team proceeded to Phesama Village to intercept the suspects at around 09-00/09-30 hours on 27.12.2023 on positive identification of the suspects and their vehicle. The vehicle bearing Registration no. AS-09/B-4440 [Scorpio] [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short] was, thereafter, intercepted at a place near Phesama Check Gate. The occupants of the subject-vehicle were identified as [i] Sanju Das; and [ii] Smti. Anita Das, husband and wife in relation. Both the suspects were taken to the Police Station and independent witnesses and a Gazetted Officer [the Officer In-Charge, North Police Station] were called. Search on the person of the suspect, Anita Das was carried out by Women Police personnel and during search, five soap cases containing suspected Heroin [Sunflower] were found concealed under her clothing. Body search of the other suspect, Sanju Das did not yield any recovery. The five soap boxes containing suspected Heroin, recovered from the person of Anita Das, were weighed separately. The total weight of the suspected Heroin was found to be 65 grams [approx.] and an inventory was prepared thereafter. Body search of the other suspect, Sanju Das did not yield any recovery. The five soap boxes containing suspected Heroin, recovered from the person of Anita Das, were weighed separately. The total weight of the suspected Heroin was found to be 65 grams [approx.] and an inventory was prepared thereafter. The packets containing the suspected heroin was duly packed and seized in presence of the independent witnesses and the Gazetted Officer by preparing a ‘Property Search & Seizure Form dated 27.12.2023’. Search was also carried in the subject-vehicle and few articles were recovered. 3.2. A proposal for the detention of the detenue, Bahar Uddin who was also arraigned as an accused in Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 was submitted by the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act. In the proposal, it was mentioned that on 27.12.2023, Heroin weighing 65 grams [approx.] contained in five nos. of soap cases, worth Rs. 2 crores [approx.], was seized in addition to the subject-vehicle and other articles. 3.3. In the proposal, submitted on 20.03.2024, it was further mentioned that on examination of Anita Das, it was revealed that she along with two other accused persons and one driver named Ruhul Amin @ Rabul went to Ukhral in December, 2023 by the subject-vehicle, belonging to the detenue, for collection of 500 soap cases [Sunflower drugs] on the instruction of the detenue. The arrested accused person, Ruhul Amin @ Rabul revealed that he worked as a driver for the detenue and had collected narcotic drugs on behalf of the detenue on several occasions. Investigation further disclosed that in multiple other cases, four other arrested accused persons were also found working for the detenue to collect, distribute and sell narcotic drugs on behalf of the detenue. Another accused person was arrested by the Assam Police in 2023 and after arrest of the said accused person, it was known that the drugs consignment, seized by the Assam Police team from the said accused person, was brought for the detenue. The proposal further mentioned that after those arrests by Nagaland Police, the detenue switched off all his mobile phones and absconded. The family members of the detenue were also found involved in running the drug trafficking networks. The proposal further mentioned that after those arrests by Nagaland Police, the detenue switched off all his mobile phones and absconded. The family members of the detenue were also found involved in running the drug trafficking networks. The proposal also made mention that the detenue had been using multiple aliases, multiple phone numbers and multiple telephone instruments to carry on the drug trafficking business. The proposal also reported that during the course of investigation, it was found that the two arrested accused persons, Smti. Anita Das and Sri Sanju Das revealed that the detenue provided the subject-vehicle along with his driver to go to Manipur and to collect narcotic drugs. It was found out that the detenue transferred an amount of Rupees nine Lakhs to Smti. Anita Das through Hundi [Hawala]. In course of investigation, a number of other accused persons were arrested and they also revealed that they worked on several occasions for the detenue to collect narcotic drugs. It was further mentioned that the detenue was wanted in multiple cases and he was declared a proclaimed offender, at least, in one case pending in Assam. It was reported that a strong case had been established against the detenue in that the detenue was actively involved in the illicit traffic of contraband by way of transportation and sale in Nagaland and beyond, by procuring them from Manipur in an organized manner. It was further mentioned that the detenue was also wanted in connection with [i] FIR no. 312 of 2023 registered at East Police Station, Dimapur; [ii] FIR no. 17 of 2023 registered at Sechu Zubza Police Station, Kohima [transferred to Narcotic Police Station vide FIR no. 02 of 2024, SIT]; and [iii] FIR no. 17 of 2023 registered at Narcotic Police Station, PHQ; and all these cases were under investigation. The proposal further reported that the detenue was found absconding and was hiding in Thelamara area in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. 3.4. The detenue was thereafter, arrested on 21.03.2024 from a place in Sonitpur district in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 by a Police team from Narcotic Police Station, Kohima. After arrest, the detenue was forwarded to the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima on 22.03.2024. 3.4. The detenue was thereafter, arrested on 21.03.2024 from a place in Sonitpur district in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 by a Police team from Narcotic Police Station, Kohima. After arrest, the detenue was forwarded to the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima on 22.03.2024. On being produced before the learned Special Court, it was submitted by the I.O. that seven accused persons were already arrested and based on their examinations, two more accused persons including accused – Bahar Uddin, were arrested for drug trafficking and smuggling from Manipur to Nagaland, Assam and rest of the country. The I.O. made a prayer for Police custody/remand of the detenue for a period of ten days and the Special Court partly allowing the prayer of the I.O., granted six days Police custody/remand. On the expiry of the Police custody/remand period, the detenue was forwarded to the Special Court on 27.03.2024 with a prayer for Police custody for further eight days and the said prayer was rejected by the Special Court for non-production of the case diary on that day. The detenue was sent to jail custody on 27.03.2024. On 28.03.2024, the I.O. renewed his prayer for Police custody/remand of the detenue for further eight days w.e.f. 28.03.2024. The Special Court considered the said prayer of the I.O. and by its Order dated 28.03.2024, allowed eight days Police custody/remand of the detenue in the interest of investigation. The I.O. was ordered to produce the detenue before the Special Court on expiry of the Police custody/remand on 04.04.2024. 3.5. In the meantime, the proposal from the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, Kohima was received at the Office of the Inspector General of Police, CID, Nagaland, Kohima. The proposal was thereafter, submitted by the Superintendent of Police [N&P], Kohima, O/o the Inspector General of Police [CID], Nagaland before the Chairman, Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, Kohima, Nagaland for detention of the detenue, an accused [absconding] in connection with Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima Case no. 22 of 2023, under the PITNDPS Act. 3.6. The Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, which has been constituted under the PITNDPS Act, had held one of its sittings on 21.03.2024 to look into the proposal submitted in connection with the detenue and to make recommendation. 22 of 2023, under the PITNDPS Act. 3.6. The Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, which has been constituted under the PITNDPS Act, had held one of its sittings on 21.03.2024 to look into the proposal submitted in connection with the detenue and to make recommendation. The Screening Board after perusal of the proposal and the documents submitted therewith, formed an opinion that sufficient materials were available for placing the proposed detenue, an accused in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023, under preventive detention. The Screening Board accordingly, recommended to forward the proposal to the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department with a further recommendation to place the proposed detenue under the preventive detention, as provided under Section 3[1] of the PITNDPS Act. 3.7. The proposal for detention was forwarded to the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department on 21.03.2024 by the Office of the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima and under the hand of the Additional Director General of Police [L&O] & Chairman, Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, Nagaland vide an Office Letter no. PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR-B/81/2022/846 of even date. 3.8. While the detenue was in Police custody in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023, he was shown arrested in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023, registered under Section 21[b], NDPS Act r/w Section 34, IPC, by an Order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur and a production warrant was also issued against the detenue. 3.9. On the basis of the proposal received from the Additional Director General of Police [L&O] & Chairman, Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, Nagaland, the respondent no. 2 reached a satisfaction on examination of the proposal and the supporting documents, that there were sufficient grounds for detention of the proposed detenue and formed a view that it was necessary to detain him w.e.f. 28.03.2024. The respondent no. 2 had accordingly, passed the impugned Order of Detention dated 28.03.2024 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act directing that the proposed detenue be detained and kept in the Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of three months w.e.f. the date of detention till 27.06.2024. 3.10. The respondent no. 2 had accordingly, passed the impugned Order of Detention dated 28.03.2024 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act directing that the proposed detenue be detained and kept in the Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of three months w.e.f. the date of detention till 27.06.2024. 3.10. It transpires that on the date of passing the impugned Order of Detention under Section 3[1] of PITNDPS Act, that is, on 28.03.2024, the respondent no. 2 also made the grounds of detention ready for communicating them to the detenue. The respondent no. 2 also for information of the detenue, signed a document for communication on 28.03.2024 under Section 3[3] of the PITNDPS Act for the purpose of compliance of Clause [5] of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. By the said document wherein the respondent no. 2 had subscribed its signature, the detenue was sought to be informed that he had the right to represent against his prevention detention before :- [i] the Detaining Authority; [ii] the State Government; [iii] the Central Government; and [iv] the Advisory Board; and he could avail such right by sending his representation through the jail authorities where he was detained. 3.11. On 04.04.2024, the I.O. of Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur stating that when on 28.03.2024, the accused – Bahar Uddin was shown arrested in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 with the issuance of production warrant, the accused – Bahar Uddin was then in Police remand for a period of eight days in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 and for the said reason, the earlier production warrant could not be executed. The I.O. further stated that as on 04.04.2024, the accused – Bahar Uddin was in judicial custody at Kohima and renewed his prayer for issuance of production warrant. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimpaur, after consideration, allowed the application of the I.O. of Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 and issued a production warrant against the accused – Bahar Uddin. 3.12. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimpaur, after consideration, allowed the application of the I.O. of Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 and issued a production warrant against the accused – Bahar Uddin. 3.12. On 06.04.2024, appearance of the accused – Bahar Uddin and another accused named Alisha Patowary were secured before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur through virtual mode and on the prayer of the I.O. of Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 [G.R. Case no. 837 of 2023], seven days police custody/remand of the accused – Bahar Uddin was allowed in the interest of investigation. On 13.04.2024, the accused – Bahar Uddin was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur after expiry of seven days Police custody/remand, granted on 06.04.2024. The I.O. had again on 13.04.2024 sought another seven days police custody/remand and the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland granted the said prayer. 3.13. The detenue, Bahar Uddin submitted representations before [i] the Detaining Authority; [ii] the State Government; [iii] the Central Government; and [iv] the Advisory Board; on 06.05.2024 against the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024. It was mentioned that after expiry of the period of police custody/remand pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2024, the I.O. made a prayer for further police custody/remand on 13.04.2024 and the said prayer was granted. On expiry of the said period of Police custody/remand, the detenue was again forwarded to the Court on 20.04.2024 and on 20.04.2024, his detention was allowed in judicial custody. It was further stated that when he was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Dimapur, the I.O. of Sub-Urban Police Station Case no. 03 of 2024 registered under Section 21[b], NDPS Act read with Section 34, IPC prayed for his Police custody/remand as an accused of the case and the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur granted Police custody/remand for a period of seven days w.e.f. 23.04.2024 till 30.04.2024. The detenue-representationist further stated that it was only since 29.04.2024 he was in judicial custody and lodged in the Central Jail, Dimapur. 3.14. The Representation of the detenue-representationist for revocation of the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 was rejected by the respondent no. 2 by an Order dated 07.05.2024. The detenue-representationist further stated that it was only since 29.04.2024 he was in judicial custody and lodged in the Central Jail, Dimapur. 3.14. The Representation of the detenue-representationist for revocation of the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 was rejected by the respondent no. 2 by an Order dated 07.05.2024. The Representation submitted by the detenue-representationist before the State Government came to be dismissed by an Order dated 08.05.2024 passed under the hand of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. It was on 14.06.2024, the Representation submitted by the detenue-representationist before the Central Government was dismissed by a Memorandum of even date of the Department of Revenue [PITNDPS] Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India [GoI] after consideration given by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, GoI and the reason for rejection was that there was no merit. 3.15. After rejection of the Representations of the detenue, the respondent no. 1 issued the Confirmation Order on 25.06.2024 after the Advisory Board recorded its opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenue under the PITNDPS Act and the continued detention of the detenue would be necessary in order to prevent him from further indulging in illicit trafficking of contraband. By the Confirmation Order, the detention period was further extended for three months w.e.f. 28.06.2024 to 27.09.2024. 3.16. Subsequently, by the Order dated 25.09.2024, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland extended the period of detention for another period of three months w.e.f. 28.09.2024 till 27.12.2024. 4. We have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the detenue – petitioner; Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagalnd/respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. Yangerwati, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent Union of India/respondent no. 4. 5. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the detenue – petitioner has submitted that immediately after passing of the impugned Order of Detention, its status turned into illegality by the actions of the respondent authorities in that the respondent authorities had themselves violated the statutory prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act and the Constitutional principle embedded in Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mr. Jamir has submitted in the Representations submitted before the authorities, the detenue had asserted that the grounds of detention were served in him along with the purported supporting documents on 11.04.2024 when he was in Police custody at East Police Station, Dimapur in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023. 5.1. Mr. Jamir has further contended that in none of the crime cases where the detenue was shown as an accused, any contraband was found and recovered from his possession. There was no specific materials pointing towards the involvement of the detenue in illegal traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. There was total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2 in concluding that the detenue had to be detained to prevent him from indulging in illicit traffic of contraband substances when the detenue was already in Police custody/remand. He has further contended that the Detention Order is in transgression of the fundamental rights of the detenue, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that when the procedure followed by the respondent authorities in serving the Order of Detention fraught with illegality, all subsequent actions would automatically become void. Mr. Jamir has referred to the admission made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to buttress his such submissions. 6. Mr. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Nagaland has submitted that the detenue is found actively involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and his arraignment as an accused in a number of crime cases involving offences under the NDPS Act bear testimony of the said fact. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the detenue and his family members are the main links in the supply chain of the illicit trafficking networks and they are well connected. He has submitted that if the detenue is not kept under preventive detention he is likely to continue running his massive trafficking networks. He has further contended that the other accused persons arrested in connection with the cases are accomplices of the detenue. He has submitted that if the detenue is not kept under preventive detention he is likely to continue running his massive trafficking networks. He has further contended that the other accused persons arrested in connection with the cases are accomplices of the detenue. Considering the influence the detenue possesses in the field of illicit trafficking it was recommended in the proposal submitted by the Additional Director General of Police [L&O] & Chairman, Screening Board, PITNDPS Act, Nagaland that the proposed detenue be detained at detention centre outside the State of Nagaland as it was suspected that the detenue might find some of already detained persons in jail to build up a nexus for commission of crime in future. He has further submitted that the detenue was found involved in transferring an amount of Rupees nine Lakhs to another arrested accused, Anita Das through Hundi [Hawala]. There are also materials to indicate that the detenue had earlier collected contraband materials from Manipur and transported them through Nagaland. Mr. Zhimomi has fairly submitted that the Detention Order came to be served upon the detenue on 11.04.2024. 7. Mr. Yangerwati, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted on the basis of written instructions received vide Letter no. F. No. U-11014/39/2024-PITNDPS dated 18.11.2024 [marked as Document - ‘X’] of the Department of Revenue [PITNDPS Division], Ministry of Finance, Government of India. He has submitted that the Representation dated 06.05.2024 of the detenue was kept in abeyance till receipt of the opinion from the Advisory Board and the Representation was considered after receipt of the opinion from the Advisory Board. The Representation was placed before the Joint Secretary [PITNDPS], Department of Revenue at first, and thereafter, it was considered by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, who on behalf of the Central Government rejected the Representation. The decision taken on the Representation of the detenue was conveyed vide a Memorandum dated 14.06.2024. 9. We have given our consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents in the file, containing materials as regards the Detention Order and other connected proceedings regarding the detenue, placed by and returned to Mr. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland during the course of hearing. 10. 9. We have given our consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents in the file, containing materials as regards the Detention Order and other connected proceedings regarding the detenue, placed by and returned to Mr. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland during the course of hearing. 10. By sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, power has been vested in the Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of Section 3 by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of Section 3 by that Government, to make an order, if satisfied, with respect to any person [including a foreigner] directing that the person be detained, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, if it is necessary so to do. Sub-section [3] of Section 3 has provided that for the purposes of Clause [5] of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance to a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. From the language of the provision contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3, it is evident that the prescription relates to the communication of the grounds of detention. The prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 is to be read together with the provision of making a detention order under sub-section [1] of Section 3. From the language of the provision contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3, it is evident that the prescription relates to the communication of the grounds of detention. The prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 is to be read together with the provision of making a detention order under sub-section [1] of Section 3. By Clause [5] of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right has been provided to a person, who is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention [like the National Security Act, 1980; the PITNDPS Act, etc.], to be communicated with the grounds on which the detention order has been made, by the authority making the order to afford the person detained an earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order. 11. In the case in hand, the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned Detention Order on 28.03.2024 as the Detaining Authority, appeared to have prepared the grounds of detention for communicating them to the detenue on 28.03.2024. Simultaneously, the respondent no. 2 had also prepared a communication, addressed to the detenue, mentioning the authorities before whom the detenue could submit his Representation against the Order of Detention dated 28.03.2024. The Detaining Authority, that is, the respondent no. 2 appeared to have taken steps for execution of the Detention Order by entrusting the task to the ADG[L&O], Nagaland, Kohima. To that effect, the respondent no. 3 had made the following order :- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT :: POLITICAL BRANCH NO.CON/PITNDPS/RPT/2/2023/23 Dated Kohima, the 28th March, 2024. To, The ADG [L&O], Nagaland, Kohima. Sub : Execution of detention orders under the PITNDPS Act, 1988. Sir, Please find enclosed herewith 2 [two] sets of detention order together with its enclosures issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 against the following detenue who has been detained under the said Act. 1. Mr. Bahar Uddin Order No. CON/PITNDPS/07/2024/22 Dated 28.03.2024 You are requested to execute the same on the detenue, obtain receipt from him/her certifying that the contents has been explained to him/her in the language he/she understands in the presence of at least two independent witnesses and that he/she has received one set each of the detention order and its enclosures. Mr. Bahar Uddin Order No. CON/PITNDPS/07/2024/22 Dated 28.03.2024 You are requested to execute the same on the detenue, obtain receipt from him/her certifying that the contents has been explained to him/her in the language he/she understands in the presence of at least two independent witnesses and that he/she has received one set each of the detention order and its enclosures. The other set of detention order and its enclosure in respect of the detenue with the signature of the concerned detenue on each page be returned to the Office of the undersigned at the earliest for further course of action. Kindly note that as per sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act, for the purpose of Clause [5] of article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to the detenue should be made positively not later than five days from the date of detention i.e., on or before 02.04.2024 and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. Enclosed : - As stated above. Yours faithfully, [SONIA SINGH] IPS. Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. 12. In his Representation, the detenue had categorically asserted that when he was in Police custody [Lock-Up] in Dimapur East Police Station at Dimapur in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023 on 11.04.2024, two Police personnel came from Kohima and handed over a set of papers to him. He was asked to sign on a nos. of papers and accordingly, he signed on those papers, as ordered by those two Police personnel. The detenue further stated that the documents served on him while he was in Police custody were inter-alia the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 and the afore-mentioned Letter no. CON/PITNDPS/RPT/2/2023/23 dated 28.03.2024 of the Detaining Authority addressed to the ADG[L&O], Nagaland, Kohima, apart from the other documents. 13. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been asserted that when the detenue was under Police custody in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 312 of 2023, he was served with the Detention Order and other documents in connection with his detention on 11.04.2024. 14. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition through the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department traversing the statements and averments made in the writ petition. 312 of 2023, he was served with the Detention Order and other documents in connection with his detention on 11.04.2024. 14. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition through the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department traversing the statements and averments made in the writ petition. In reply to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is matter of records. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has inter alia been stated as follows :- 12.….. Here, it is pertinent to point that the rights of the petitioner have not been interfered in any manner, the detention order, related documents and enclosures highlighting the grounds of detention and information to detenue apprising him of his rights dated 28.03.2024 have been served and acknowledgement receipt duly signed by the detenue obtained. The signature of the detenue appended in the acknowledgement certificate dated 11.04.2024 proves receipt of the same within the stipulated time period. 15. The Acknowledge Certificate, appended, as Annexure-A to the Affidavit-in-Opposition, bears testimony to the fact that the detenue received one of the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 and its enclosures on 11.04.2024 under his signature in presence of two witnesses viz. [i] Dolly; and [ii] Zakir Hussain. The Executing Officer also subscribed his signature with date shown as 11.04.2024. 16. In the above fact situation obtaining in the case, it has emerged that the Detention Order was passed on 28.03.2024 and the detenue was communicated the grounds on 11.04.2024 on which the Detention Order was passed. The issue which has, thus, arisen for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. 17. The issue which has, thus, arisen for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. 17. Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India read with Section 3[3], PITNDPS Act casts a dual obligation on the authority making the order of preventive detention : firstly, to communicate to the person detained as soon as may be after the detention, the grounds on which the detention order has been made; and it should not ordinarily be not later than five days, and only in exceptional circumstances, that too, for reasons recorded to be in writing, such communication can be made within a period not later than fifteen days from the date of detention; and secondly, to afford the persons detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. 18. The Detaining Authority had, on 28.03.2024, entrusted the task to the ADG[L&O], Nagaland, Kohima vide the Office Letter no. CON/PITNDPS/RPT/2/2023/23 of even date to communicate the Detention Order along with its enclosures positively on the detenue not later than five days from the date of detention, that is, on or before 02.04.2024. It was also reminded that, those could be communicated within a period not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The detenue, Bahar Uddin was arrested on 21.03.2024 in connection with Narcotic Police Station Case no. 22 of 2023 and after arrest, the detenue was forwarded to the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima on 22.03.2024. On and from 22.03.2024, the detenue was either in Police custody or in judicial custody, at least, till 13.04.2024, as evident from paragraph 3 above. The State respondent authorities were well aware about the place of detention of the detenue during the afore-stated period. In the affidavit-in-opposition, there is no explanation as to why the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 and the other enclosures, mentioned in the Office Letter no. CON/PITNDPS/RPT/2/ 2023/23 dated 28.03.2024, could not be communicated to the detenue within a period of five days from 28.03.2024, that is, on or before 02.04.2024. In the affidavit-in-opposition, there is no explanation as to why the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 and the other enclosures, mentioned in the Office Letter no. CON/PITNDPS/RPT/2/ 2023/23 dated 28.03.2024, could not be communicated to the detenue within a period of five days from 28.03.2024, that is, on or before 02.04.2024. There is also no explanation as to what prevented the State respondent authorities to communicate the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 and the other enclosures during the period from 03.04.2024 to 10.04.2024. The existence or non-existence of exceptional circumstances is a question of fact and for explaining the delay, obligation is cast on the Detaining Authority to explain what prevented it to communicate the grounds of detention and other supporting documents along with the Detention Order to the detenue within the statutory period. The State respondent authorities have neither cited any exceptional circumstances nor have brought anything on record wherein reasons were recorded in writing regarding such delayed communication. In a matter of preventive detention the question of personal liberty of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is intricately involved. From the facts narrated above, it has emerged that a violation of the prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act has occurred in the present case. 19. At this stage, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hem Lall Bhandari vs. State of Sikkim and others, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 9, can be referred to. The case in Hem Lall Bhandari [supra] was under Section 8[1] of the National Security Act, 1980 and the order for detention of the petitioner, Hem Lall Bhandari was made on 25.09.1986 and the grounds of detention were also prepared on 25.09.1986. The petitioner was served with the detention order on 29.09.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner, Hem Lall Bhandari was served with the impugned order of detention, the grounds of detention and the supporting documents on 14.10.1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confined its discussion to the question whether there had been a violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 or not. 19.1. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : 10. A bare reading of the section shows that it is obligatory on the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, promptly. 19.1. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : 10. A bare reading of the section shows that it is obligatory on the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, promptly. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days. The detaining authority is permitted to exceed this limitation of 5 days in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention, under exceptional circumstances, can be communicated to the detenu within a period not later than 15 days from the date of detention but when the detaining authority takes time longer than 5 days he has to record reasons why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within 5 days. It is clear in this case that the grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner long after 10 days. There is no record evidencing any reason for this long delay. * * * * * 12. We have considered the averments in the counter-affidavit carefully. We have no hesitation to hold that there has been a flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 in this case. It is not permissible, in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen, to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers. In matters where the liberty of the citizens is involved, it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. Expeditious action is insisted upon as a safeguard against manipulation. 13. In this case there is no acceptable or satisfactory explanation as to what the officer or the officers did after October 6, 1986. This inaction after October 6, 1986 till October 14, 1986, by itself is sufficient for us to hold that Section 8[1] has been violated by the officer concerned and on that ground alone the order of detention has to be quashed. 14. An attempt was made by the counsel for the respondents to contend that the delay in communicating the grounds of detention caused in this case has to be condoned and the rigour of the section relaxed since the detenu had been released on October 2, 1986, and hence was not in detention. 14. An attempt was made by the counsel for the respondents to contend that the delay in communicating the grounds of detention caused in this case has to be condoned and the rigour of the section relaxed since the detenu had been released on October 2, 1986, and hence was not in detention. This according to us is specious plea which cannot stand legal scrutiny. If this contention is to be extended to its logical conclusion it would be clothing the authorities with powers to delay communication of the grounds of detention indefinitely, whenever a detenu secures from a court of law either bail or parole. To accept this contention would be to destroy the effect of the mandate of the section. As indicated earlier, the mandate enacted in the section is a safety valve for a citizen who is robbed of his liberty and to disable the authorities from manipulating the grounds of detention. The section has to be interpreted literally. No relaxation is permissible. If the original time of 5 days has to be extended, such extension must be supported by an order recording reasons. If reasons are not so recorded the order of detention will automatically fail. Even if reasons are recorded they have to inspire confidence in the court and are subject to legal scrutiny. If the reasons are unsatisfactory courts would still quash the order of detention. 15. On a consideration of the materials placed before us we hold that the order of detention is bad and we quash the same. Since the petitioner is not in detention there is no need to pass any order to direct his release. 20. Sub-section [1] of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 [‘the N.S. Act’, for short] is almost pari materia to sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. Since the petitioner is not in detention there is no need to pass any order to direct his release. 20. Sub-section [1] of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 [‘the N.S. Act’, for short] is almost pari materia to sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. For ready reference, the provisions of Sub-section [1] of Section 8 of the N.S. Act and sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act are extracted herein below in juxtaposition :- Section 8[1], N.S. Act Section 3[3], PITNDPS Act When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to be appropriate Government. For the purpose of clause [5] of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 21. The principle behind both Section 8[1] of the N.S. Act and Section 3[3] of the PITNDPS Act, in the considered view, is one and the same, that is, the detenue must be communicated with the grounds on which the detention order has been made and the supporting documents at the earliest, but not later than five days ordinarily, and in exceptional circumstance and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than the period prescribed therein. We are also of the unhesitant view that the observations made in Hem Lall Bhandari [supra] are applicable proprio vigore in a case of preventive detention under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. We are also of the unhesitant view that the observations made in Hem Lall Bhandari [supra] are applicable proprio vigore in a case of preventive detention under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. The decision in Hem Lall Bhandari [supra] has also been followed by the coordinate Division Benches of this Court in Kshetrimayum Maipak Devi vs. State of Manipur and others, reported in [2001] 3 GLR 71; and Khundrakpam Nimai Singh vs. District Magistrate, Ukhrul, reported in [2006] 1 GLR 733. 22. In the light of the above consideration, more particularly, in view of the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to comply with the mandatory prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act and also for failure to show any exceptional circumstances recording reasons in writing, we reach a finding that there is clear violation of the mandatory prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act read with Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India in respect of the detention of the detenue, Bahar Uddin. Accordingly, the detenue, Bahar Uddin is entitled to be released as his continuing detention under the PITNDPS Act is not sustainable in law. 23. We also find applicability of the legal maxim, ‘Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus’ in the present case. The legal maxim ‘Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus’ means that if the foundation stands removed, structure/work falls. It is a settled legal proposition that if the initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequent proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally. Therefore, the Order dated 25.06.2024 whereby the Detention Order dated 28.03.2024 was confirmed with extension up to 27.09.2024 and the Order dated 25.09.2024 whereby the detention period was extended up to 27.12.2024 are also hereby quashed with the Order of Detention dated 28.03.2024. It is ordered that the detenue, Bahar Uddin is to be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case.