GAIGONGLUNG GOLMEI ALIAS AGANG Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the detenu -petitioner is assailing the impugned detention order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District, Manipur in DC(TML)/11/NSA/2012 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the detention order of the petitioner is vitiated on the ground that the grounds of detention was communicated to the petitioner -detenu on the eighth day which is beyond the permissible limit of five days as provided under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 and no reasons have been recorded in writing for not furnishing the grounds of detention beyond five days but within ten days as provided under Section 8 of the Act. Secondly, it has been also submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail is merely ipse dixit and not based on any objective material as required under the law in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in Huidrom Konungjao Singh ­vs - State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2002.

(3.) HOWEVER , the grounds of detention dated 22.10.2012 was furnished to the petitioner -detenu only on 26.10.2012. Thus, the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner -detenu after eight days of the detention. The aforesaid fact has not been denied by the State official respondents in their affidavit -in -opposition dated 20.03.2013. In the affidavit -in -opposition it has been stated that the District Magistrate had sent the grounds of dentition on 22.10.2012 through the Superintendent of Police, Sajiwa Jail and the petitioner - detenu received the grounds of detention on 26.10.2012. It has been further stated that during this intervening period there were two days' general holidays, and accordingly, the State respondents submitted that there was no delay in furnishing the grounds of detention as mentioned in para no. 8 thereof.