KHUPKHOTHANG MISAO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHURACHANDPUR DISTRICT, MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of other writ petition being W.P.No 123 of 2012. Because both the writ petitioners are based on same facts.

(2.) BY filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge his detention order dt 17.8.2012 (annexure -A -2) passed by District Magistrate Churchanpur and also seek to challenge the confirmation order dt 28.8.2012 (annexure ­A -4) passed by the State under the provisions of Prevention of Detention Act (for short hereinafter called ­ 'The Act').

(3.) WE however allowed the writ petition no 116/2012 (Khumukcham Dhiren Singh @ Tha - Kappa ­Vrs ­ The District Magistrate, Imphal West,Manipur & Others) and quashed the writ petitioner's detention order impugned in the said writ petition by accepting the first submission of the writ petitioner raised therein to the effect that there was no material for forming a subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority that detenue (writ petitioner) who was in jail was likely to be released on bail in connection with the offense in which he was kept in jail. Since the same legal submission which found acceptance to this court in W.P (Cril.).No 116/2012 was pressed in service in these writ petitions while challenging the impugned detention orders of these writ petitioners in these two writ petitions and that too are based on identical facts and therefore, we are inclined to adopt, and apply the same reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by us in W.P.(Cril.) No. 116 of 2012 for quashing the detention orders impugned in these two writ petitions also. It is all the more when the learned counsel for the respondents were not able to point out to us any significant distinguishable factual features in both these cases as compared to the facts involved in W.P.(Cril.) No. 116 of 2012. That apart, the slight distinguishable facts which we noticed in these cases are not sufficient to take a different view in these 2 writ petitions so as to uphold the impugned detention orders.