THETHEM KIPGEN SMTL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SENAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for releasing the detenu Sri Seikam Kipgen of Kangpokpi Bazar from detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act, 1980) and for quashing the detention order dated 30.4.2000,9.5.2000 and 31.5.2000 (Annexures A/1, A/3 and A/4 respectively).

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition very briefly are that by order dated 30th April, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Senapati District, Senapati Shri Seikam Kipgen @ Sir Patrick Henry who is the husband of the petitioner was detained under the Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were prepared by the District Magistrate, Senapati on 5.2.2000. The case of the petitioner is that the said grounds of detention were served on the aforesaid detenu on 7.5.2000.

(3.) Mr. A. Nilamani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, 1980, when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order the authority making the order is required to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the detention order is made ordinarily not later than 5 days and in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 10 days from the date of detention. Mr. Nilamani submitted that since the date of detention of the detenu in the present case was 30th April, 2000, ordinarily the grounds on the basis of which the detention order was passed were to be communicated to the detenu on or before 5.5.2000, but the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order was passed were communicated to the detenu on 7.5.2000. Mr. A. Nilamani further submitted that the grounds of detention could be communicated to the detenu beyond the period of 5 days and not later than 10 days from the date of detention only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded as has been expressly stated in sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, 1980. But in the present case no exceptional circumstances have been indicated in the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Senapati nor any reasons has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Senapati as to why the grounds of detention were served on the detenu beyond the period of 5 days. According to Mr. A. Nilamani the detenu was entitled to be released on this ground alone. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Hem Lall Bhandari -vs- State of Sikkim and others, AIR 1987 SC 762 in which the Supreme Court quashed the order of detention on the ground that the grounds of detention were served on the detenu beyond the period provided in sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, 1980 and no reasons were recorded by the detaining authority for communicating the grounds of detention to the detenu beyond the period of 5 days.