YUMNAM MANGIBABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As we felt after fully hearing counsel on either side that the impugned order of detention herein deserved to be quashed, we by our order dated 9th Sep., 1982, directed the immediate release of the appellant and stated that our reasons would follow. We now proceed to give our reasons.

(2.) The appellant Yumnam Mangibabu Singh (the detenu) is a science graduate and was at the material time serving as Superintending Engineer (Class I Post) in the Electricity Department of the Government of Manipur at Imphal. It is alleged that on 13th May, 1981 he wrote a letter to Head-quarters, Peoples' Liberation Army, Eastern Region, an unlawful organisation in Manipur, promising financial help to the organisation in his official capacity. On 31-10-1981 the Army called him to its Headquarters, Imphal, and as soon as he reached there he was handed over to the Police Station on lodging a complaint (F. I. R.) against him for offences under Sections 121/121-A, I. P. C. and 13 of U. A. P. Act. He was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1-11-1981 and released on bail. However, at the instance of the police, when he visited the Police Station in the morning of 21-11-1981, he was served with a detention order dated 20-11-1981 issued by the District Magistrate, Central Manipur (respondent No. 2) under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and on taking him into custody he was detained in Manipur Central Jail. The detention was effected with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (a) the security of the State and (b) maintenance of public order. On 23rd Nov., 1981, he was served with grounds of detention along with some photostat copies of concerned documents, including a copy of the letter dated 13-5-1981, allegedly written by him (the subject-matter of the F. I. R.). The grounds of detention as furnished to the appellant run thus:-

(3.) On 27-11-1981 the appellant submitted his representation to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur against his detention, denying having had any connection with the P. L. A. or having acted in any manner prejudicial to the' security of the State or maintenance of public order. He also reserved his right to file further representation after getting certain material and documents which were not supplied to him. The representation was rejected. Thereafter he filed a writ in the High Court of Manipur at Gauhati being Civil Rule (H. C.) No. 950 of 1981 challenging his detention on several grounds but the High Court negatived all the grounds of challenge and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 25-1-1982 and 17-2-1982. The decision of the High Court is challenged in the instant appeal. Alternatively, he has approached this Court by a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention. The appeal as well as the writ petition are being allowed for the reasons indicated below.