LAWS(MANIP)-2015-4-16

THANGJAM ROMEN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

Decided On April 22, 2015
Thangjam Romen Singh Appellant
V/S
District Magistrate and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the detenu challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Thoubal dated 24.11.2014 directing his detention under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the Act).

(2.) In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner joined a banned organisation namely Peoples' Liberation Army as an active member thereof sometime in March, 2013 and was involved in the acts of extortion of money from general public by creating an atmosphere of terror. He was arrested on 13.11.2014 by a police team and there was recovery of one mobile hand-set with sim cards. On the strength of a report, FIR No.118(11)2014 Yairipok PS was registered for commission of offence u/s 20UA(P) Act read with Section 384 IPC. He was remanded to police custody till 20.11.2014 and such remand was extended upto 24.11.2014. The day the period of police remand expired, the order of detention was passed by the learned District Magistrate, Thoubal. The detention of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board which forms the order of detention and accordingly under Annexure A/7 the Govt. of Manipur confirmed the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. Challenging the initial order of detention passed by the learned District Magistrate and the order of confirmation passed by the State under Annexure-A/7, this writ application has been filed.

(3.) Shri A. Romenkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not assail the order of detention passed by the learned District Magistrate but challenged the validity of the order of confirmation passed by the State on 16.1.2015 under Annexure-A/7 under which the period of detention has been made for 12 months from the date of detention. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order of confirmation passed by the State Government is in contravention of the proviso to sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act.