(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 29.12.2012 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act,1980. The petitioner is the uncle of the detenu, Shri Shamurailatpam Bipin Sharma. From the Annexure attached to the writ petition, it appears that the order of detention was passed on 29.12.2012 and his detention was approved by the respondent No.l on 08.1.2013. The representation of the detenu to the Advisory Board was also not accepted and ultimately detention order was confirmed by the respondent No.l on 30.1.2013.
(2.) Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on three grounds- (i) the District Magistrate, while passing the order of detention, has not recorded his satisfaction that the detenu may be released on bail or that after being released on bail he may indulge in such criminal activity; (ii) the detenu was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses to rebut the allegations made in the grounds of detention even though he prayed for it. and (iii) the detenu was not allowed to be represented through a friend/ counsel. In relation to the first ground on challenge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu had been taken to custody on 22.11.2012 and had been remanded to police custody till 28.11.2012. On the date the order of detention was passed, the detenu was in custody. Since the detenu was in custody, it was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate in the order of detention should have recorded his satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and that after being released on bail, he is likely to indulge in such criminal activities.
(3.) The learned G.A. fairly concedes that the District Magistrate has not recorded his subjective satisfaction in the order of detention which is also not available in the grounds of detention.