R K LAKHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the detention dated 22.12.99 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur and the orders dated 3.1.2000 and 3.2.2000 of the Govt. of Manipur approving and confirming the said order of detention under'the National Security Act, 1980 (for short Ihe Act, 1980).

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition briefly are that by an rder passed on 22.12.99 by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District Manipur the petitioner was detained under the Act, 1980. The petitioner was thereafter served with the grounds of detention. The District Magistrate reported the fact to the State Govt. and the order iof detention was approved by order dated 3.1.2000 by the State Government in the Home Department. The petitioner submitted representation dated UO. 1.2000 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal against the order of detention. Simultaneously, the petitioner also submitted representation dated 10.1.2000 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Imphal (Annexure A/5) against the order of detention. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 28.1.2000 informed the petitioner that his representation had been considered carefully but has been turned dwn by the Central Government. The Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Manipur! vide letter dated 29.1.2000 informed the petitioner also that his representation has been considered carefully by the State Government and that the request of the petitioner to revoke the detention order has not been acceded to. Thereafter by order dated 3.2.200dof the State Government the order of detention was confirmed in consonance with the opinion of the Advisory Board. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(3.) Mr. Madhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it would be very clear from the averments in the writ petition that while the petitioner was detained en 22.12.99, the grounds of detention were sewed on him only on 3.1.2000. According to Mr. Madhu, under Section 8(i) of the Act, 1980 when a person is detained in pursuance of detention order, the authority making the order has to ordinarily communicate the detenu the grounds of detention not later than 5 days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 10 days from the date of detention. Mr. Madhu stated that the petitioner was detained on 22.12.99 but the grounds of detention were served on him 13 days thereafter i.e. on 3.1.2000, but no reasons whatsoever have been shown to have been recorded nor any exceptional circumstance indicated for such delay beyond 5 days in serving the grounds of detention on the petitioner. It was next submitted by Mr. Madhu that the petitioner submitted his representation to the State Government on 10.1.2000, but his representation was considered and rejected by the State Government only on 29.1.2000. There was, therefore, a delay of 19 days in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. He submitted that sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Act, 1980 provides that a District Magistrate passing the order of detention has to "forthwith" report the fact of such detention to the State Government together with the grounds of detention on which the order has been passed and within 12 days of die passing of the order of detention the State Government has to approve the order of detention. In the present case the order dated 3.1.2000 of the State Government approving the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate would show that the fact of detention of the petitioner was reported by the District Magistrate to the State Government in his letter dated 3.1.2000 i.e. on the 12th day after the passing of the order of detention. Therefore, the District Magistrate has failed to report the fact of detention of the petitioner to the State Government "forthwith" and the order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Madhu cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.N. Joglekar -vs- Commissioner of Police, AIR 1957 SC 28, Gora -vs- State ofW.B. AIR 1975 SC 473, SKSalim vs- State ofW.B. AIR 1975 SC 602 andNavalshakar Ishwarlal Dave and Anr. -vs- State of Gujarat and others 1993 Supp (3) SCC 754 and the unreprted decision of this court in WP(Crl) No. 13 of!999, Shri Maisnam Sanathoi Meitei alias Jeet alias Bobino -vs- The District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur and 2 others.