LASTING G. MOMIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of habeas corpus by Smt Majila G Momin, mother of detenue Shri Lasting G Momin who has been detained by the order dated 25.03.2014 passed under provisions of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (for short "MPDA") by respondent Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate. The main grounds of challenge to the impugned detention order, inter alia, are that there is a non application of mind in passing it; there was non -supply of necessary documents and materials, and despite the fact that there was no criminal case pending against the detenue, he was detained on the omnibus grounds which may relate to the cases of other detenues travelling in one car wherein the petitioner had innocently asked for and given a lift to travel from Shallang to his native place. The detention orders passed on 25.03.2014 are reproduced herein below : <FRM>Judgement_1015_GAULT(ML)4_2014.htm</FRM>

(2.) As per averments made in the writ petition, detenue Shri Lasting G Momin was arrested on 29.01.2014 by SIRB Swer along with SWAT team and E/186 CRPF personnel from Shallang when they were conducting counter operations duty in Doranggre area and an FIR was registered against the detenue vide Shillong PS Case No. 01.(01) 2014 under Sections 384/506/120(B) IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act and Sections 13/17/18/39/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was given to police custody for fourteen days, and thereafter, sent to judicial custody. When he was still in judicial custody in District Jail, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, he was served with the impugned detention order vide letter No. NDC.1/2014/10 dated 25.03.2014 along with the grounds of detention under Section 3(1) of MPDA 1995. The detention order was passed in order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner pre -judicial to security of the State and maintenance of public order. Subsequently, the detenue was served with the order vide Memo No. POL.79/2014/20 -A, dated 01.04.2014, whereby the detention order was approved.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr SP Mahanta submitted that the grounds of detention and supporting documents like FIR etc. were never served upon the detenue. Thus, there was a gross violation of fundamental rights of the detenue because he was deprived of his rights to make effective representation and assert his rights as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8(1) of MPDA 1995. Moreover, the grounds shown to have been furnished in detention order are totally irrelevant and that also goes to suggest that there was a total non -application of mind. The detenue has not acted in any manner which can be said to be prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or of supplies and services essential to the community. There was no proximity or reasonable nexus between the order of detention and the grounds furnished to the detenue which rather appear to be totally extraneous. The detenue is a student of Class X, and he is ignorant about his rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the MPD Act. He was not provided any legal assistance soon before the arrest and also thereafter, which he was entitled to, before served with the detention order in jail. Even the requirements of Section 207 CrPC were not complied. It is also a submission that other occupants of the car who, perhaps, might have been indulging in anti national activities were not served with any detention order, whereas the petitioner who only took a lift in the car to travel from Shallang market to his native place was apprehended by police team. He is not a member of the Garo National Liberation Army (for short "GNLA") nor has he any knowledge about any activity of the Organization. The allegations regarding recovery of illegal arms etc. may be true in respect of other accused but not in the case of the detenue. The petitioner could not even submit a representation to the authority in the absence of knowledge because he was not informed about his rights to do so. Failure on the part of detaining authority to inform the detenue about his rights upon detention has caused a serious infraction of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.