JUDGMENT : Pranjal Das, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, Siba Bhuyan has filed the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking interference with the detention order dated 05.06.2025 vide Memo No. ECF-614967/67 issued by the Respondent No.2– Secretary, Home and Department, Government of Assam. 3. The facts in brief as contended by the petitioner, are that on 11.06.2025, he was served with a copy of the aforesaid detention order by the police personnel of Biswanath Chariali Police Station, who came to his house and took him to the quarter of the DSP, Biswanath Chariali where he was made to sign certain papers. 4. It is contended that the police personnel apart from serving a copy of the detention order, served his mother some illegible photocopies of case records. Thereafter, the petitioner was forwarded to Biswanath District Jail, where he is undergoing preventive detention at present. 5. In the detention order dated 05.06.2025 mentioned above, it is stated that the petitioner has been engaging in illegal and harmful activities of illicit business in narcotic drugs and repeated violations of the provisions under NDPS Act 1985. Reference of two police cases under the NDPS Act, pending against him has been given, those being – Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 4/2022 under section 21(a)/29 of NDPS Act and Gingia PS Case No.49/2024 under section 21(b) NDPSAct, read with section 78 of the JJ Act. 6. It is further stated in the detention order that as intimated by the SP, Biswanath Chariali, in his letter dated 01.07.2024, the petitioner was found to be a repeated offender under various sections of NDPS Act and therefore, his preventive detention invoking the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (hereinafter PIT NDPS ) Act is necessary to break the network of drug supply in the district. 7. The grounds of detention vide ECF 614-967/64 dated 05.06.2025 are also on similar lines; that, as per confidential information, petitioner is involved in illicit trafficking of illegal drugs for last several years and involved in multiple cases such as Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 4/2022 and Gingia PS Case No. 49/2024 under the NDPS Act. 8. 7. The grounds of detention vide ECF 614-967/64 dated 05.06.2025 are also on similar lines; that, as per confidential information, petitioner is involved in illicit trafficking of illegal drugs for last several years and involved in multiple cases such as Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 4/2022 and Gingia PS Case No. 49/2024 under the NDPS Act. 8. References have been made to certain facts pertaining to these cases that in the Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 4/2022, the police recovered 6 grams of heroin from one Pankaj Gupta, who stated that it was purchased from the petitioner. Similarly, it was revealed that the detenue compelled one minor boy to conceal 36 grams of heroin; that the petitioner was involved in trafficking of drugs in Biswanath District and though at present on bail, his release is detrimental to society as his high likelihood of his resuming criminal activities in the district; that his detention is necessary to protect, the society from drugs in the area and to deter other criminals. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner supporting the contentions in the petition submits that the grounds of detention were given to his mother in English language. But, his mother was an illiterate lady and therefore, there was no effective conveying of grounds of detention. Secondly, the family of the petitioner was not given proper information regarding submitting of representation and that, though his mother submitted a representation dated 17.06.2025 before the SP Biswanath District, the same was never forwarded to the Advisory Board which rendered its opinion on 20.07.2025 confirming the detention. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner submitted another representation addressed to the Detaining Authority i.e. Secretary, Home and Political Department Government of Assam and sought to submit it through the learned District Jail Biswanath, but the learned Jail Authority made him to leave the application undated and that eventually, it was forwarded vide letter dated 27.07.2025 by which time the advisory opinion confirming the detention had already been passed. 11. The respondent No. 7- the Superintendent of Police, Biswanath has submitted an affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in para 4 that after his detention order, grounds of arrest, dossier was served to the detenue and his signature and that of his mother were taken. In para 6, the said respondent also denied that illegible copies of case record was furnished to the detenue. It is stated in para 4 that after his detention order, grounds of arrest, dossier was served to the detenue and his signature and that of his mother were taken. In para 6, the said respondent also denied that illegible copies of case record was furnished to the detenue. It is also stated in para 7 that the Biswanath Police case was with regard to an incident on 06.01.2022 and a Ginjia police case was with regard to an incident on 31.05.2024. 12. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit-in-reply with regard to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 7. It may be mentioned here that vide order dated 20.07.2025 the Advisory Board rendered its advisory opinion regarding confirmation of the preventive detention of the petitioner vide order dated 05.06.2025. 13. Pursuant thereof, the confirmation order came to be passed against the petitioner. In the advisory opinion of the Advisory Board dated 20.07.2025, it is stated that- the detenue stated before the Board about being served the detention order, grounds of detention and his right to make representation to the State Government or the Detaining authority or the Board or Government of India. That, after application of mind to the documents, he decided not to file any written representation to the concerned authorities. 14. In the report of the Advisory Board dated 29.07.2025, it is also reflected that the detenue was informed about the grounds of detention, his right to make a representation and that after applying his mind to the documents, he decided not to file written representation. 15. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there was due compliance with the procedure required for such preventive detention. The detenue and his family member have been duly served with the detention order and the grounds of detention and informed about his right to make representation- which have also been reflected in the opinion and report of the Advisory Board. 16. Supporting the affidavit and the detention order, the learned AAG Assam submits that there are valid grounds to invoke the power of preventive detention against the petitioner as he is habitually indulging in peddling/trafficking of narcotic drugs and that, in the larger interest of society, this power needs to be exercised. 17. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the annexed documents, the relevant portions of the case record placed before the Court. 17. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the annexed documents, the relevant portions of the case record placed before the Court. We have also considered the rival submissions and perused the case laws cited at the Bar. 18. It is reflected in the order dated 20.07.2025 and report dated 29.07.2025 of the Advisory Board that grounds of detention along with legible copies of relevant documents have been furnished to the detenue, as stated by him and detenue also stated that he fully understood the grounds of his detention. It is also reflected in the said two orders that the detenue stated about being informed of his right to make representation and that the detenue stated about deciding not to file representation. 19. The Prosecution of the detenue/writ petitioner in the two police cases taken into account by the Authority i.e. Biswanath Chariali PS Case No. 4/2022 and Gingia PS Case No.49/2024 both under NDPS Act have not been denied by the detenue/writ petitioner, though he had stated that he has been falsely implicated. 20. Upon perusing the grounds adduced by the Detaining Authority and the opinion of the Advisory Board leading to the confirmation order – we find that preventive detention under PIT-NDPS, has been invoked against the present petitioner/detenue with a view to prevent the network of drug trafficking in the district of Biswanath. This has also been done in the backdrop of the petitioner/detenue already facing prosecution in two ongoing police cases under the NDPS Act. Both have been charge-sheeted and pending for trial. 21. Let us now deal with the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India , reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53 , the principle laid down is that the detaining authority has to communicate the grounds of detention at the earliest and give the detenu an earliest opportunity for effective representation and for that purpose, all the documents relied upon for passing the detention order have to be furnished so that the right to make an effective representation becomes an effective right. It has also been laid down that representation if submitted by the detenue requires expeditious disposal and all the intermediary authorities like jail staff etc. must also act with promptitude to transmit the representation and for this purpose, they may also rely on electronic communications etc. It has also been laid down that representation if submitted by the detenue requires expeditious disposal and all the intermediary authorities like jail staff etc. must also act with promptitude to transmit the representation and for this purpose, they may also rely on electronic communications etc. An unexplained delay in such communication on the part of such intermediary authorities could also vitiate the detention order. 22. In the case of State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan , reported in (2022) 19 SCC 509 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has empathised the importance of supplying proper copies which can be effectively read by the detenue or on his behalf. In Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telengana , reported in (2023) 13 SCC 537 , one of the principles derived therefrom is that preventive detention cannot be a substitute for taking recourse to other usual processes of criminal law such as bail cancellation etc. It has also been laid down that when preventive detention is in the backdrop of earlier circumstances, there has to be a live and proximate link with the said activity. 23. In Ameena Begum v. Stae of Telengana , reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587 , it has been held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority should not be derived from extraneous factors. In Rajinder Arora v. Union of India , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 796 the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that vital and relevant materials have to be considered by the detaining authority and non-consideration thereof could vitiate the detention order. 24. On the touchstone of some of these principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, the factual metris of this case has to be tested. We have found that in the opinion of the Advisory Board, it has been observed that the detenue did not have any issue with any legibility of documents and that he could peruse the same. It has also been observed that he has not submitted any representation regarding his preventive detention. The petitioner has sought to place before this Court a representation purportedly given by his mother. 25. This is belied by the observation of the Advisory Board in its opinion about any such representation. It has also been observed that he has not submitted any representation regarding his preventive detention. The petitioner has sought to place before this Court a representation purportedly given by his mother. 25. This is belied by the observation of the Advisory Board in its opinion about any such representation. Another representation sought to be placed before this Court is one purportedly submitted to the jail authority, but the said representation perused by the court reveals that it is undated. In the factual matrix of this case, tested on the aforesaid principles laid down in the decisions referred to above – we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances surrounding the preventive detention of the petitioner has complied with these principles and therefore, reliance upon these principles would not be of any significant assistance to the petitioner. 26. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since bail was granted to the applicant in the two cases by going through the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the apprehension leading to the impugned detention is unsustainable. However, we find force in the argument advanced by Shri Parasar, learned CGC that the bails which were granted to the petitioner were for cases in which, there was no application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It may be mentioned that under Section 37 (1) (b), the additional considerations for grant of bail are for offences under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and for offences involving commercial quantity. However, in the two cases in which, the petitioner was arrested and granted bail, the said sections were not involved. 27. A feeble submission was made by the petitioner that the Central Government had not considered and disposed of the representation. We have carefully examined the writ petition and there is no averment that any representation was given to the Central Government. Shri Parasar, learned CGC has also confirmed that no representation was even submitted to the Central Government. In the view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the said argument cannot be countenanced in the facts of present case, more so, when the learned Advisory Board has recorded all the relevant facts in its order. 28. Shri Parasar, learned CGC has also confirmed that no representation was even submitted to the Central Government. In the view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the said argument cannot be countenanced in the facts of present case, more so, when the learned Advisory Board has recorded all the relevant facts in its order. 28. Therefore, the grounds prima facie are significant to deter the petitioner from being habitually involved in further such illegal activities under the NDPS Act and to break the network of drug trafficking in the concerned District of Biswanath. 29. The said grounds and the contentions made by the respondents with regard to the same cannot be brushed aside, as the menace of drugs has assumed very serious proportions, in this part of the country, as well. 30. Upon perusing the materials, including the facts reflected in the opinion of the Advisory Board - we have not found any fatal procedural infirmity with regard to the entire sequence of events and procedures giving rise to the preventive detention of the petitioner/detenue. 31. Consequently, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion- we do not find any merit for interfering with the order of detention dated 05.06.2025 and the confirmation orderdated04.08.2025 pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board. 32. Resultantly, the instant Writ Petition challenging the preventive detention of the detenue, Siba Bhuyan, stands dismissed. 33. Return the records to the learned Government Advocate, Assam.