PEBAM NINGOL MIKOI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West (respondent No. 2) preventively detaining the husband of the petitioner under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short "NSA"), is under challenge in this writ petition. The petition is filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu was arrested by Singjamei Police on 18.7.2009 in connection with FIR Case No. 183(9)2009 SJM, P.S. Under Section 17/20 UA (P) A. Act. On his arrest, he was produced before the court for police remand and was remanded to Police custody till 24.9.2009. On 24.9.2009, when he was produced before the court for judicial remand, the impugned detention order was passed and served upon him. It appears that the impugned detention order was passed even before the expiry of the remand period. Any way, on 28.9.2009, while he was on his cell at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, the grounds of his detention were furnished to him. In the meantime, on 3.10.2009, his detention order was approved by the respondent No. 1. The detenu, on 9.10.2009, submitted 3(three) separate representations, all bearing dated 9.10.2009, addressed to the respondents 1, 2 and 3. His representation was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 12.10.2009. His representation meant for the respondent No. 3 was forwarded by the respondent No. 1 on 16.10.2009, which was received on 28.10.2009. His representation was finally rejected on 3.11.2009. In the meantime, his detention order was confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on 7.11.2009. This is how this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu for appropriate relief. The writ petition is contested by both the State respondents as well as the Union of India by filing their respective affidavits-in-oppositions.

(2.) Mr. Dolen Ph., the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes two fold contentions, namely (1) the allegations made against the detenu in the grounds of detention are vague and irrelevant and are not sufficient to deprive the detenu of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, for which, he relies on the decisions of this Court in Shri Y. Sharatchandra Singh v. the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur and Ors. in W.P.(Cril.) No. 29 of 2009; Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J. &. K and Ors., 1979 4 SCC 370; Gulab Mehra v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1987 4 SCC 302; Piyus Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Anr, 1989 Supp1 SCC 322 and there are no cogent materials upon which the subjective satisfactions of the detaining authority were arrived at, namely, the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Reliance is placed by him on the following decisions in support of his contention: (i) K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of T.N, 2008 9 SCC 89; (ii) T.V. Sravanan v. State, 2006 2 SCC 664; (iii) A. Shanthi v. Govt. of T.N. and Ors., 2006 9 SCC 711 and (iv) Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi, 2002 7 SCC 129.

(3.) Mr. A. Modhuchandra Singh, learned State counsel, however, supports the impugned detention order and submits that no infirmity can be pointed out by the petitioner calling for the interference of this Court in the impugned detention order. It is the contention of the learned State counsel that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had enclosed a number of documents including the statements of the detenu himself recorded by the Police, which are relevant materials upon which the detaining authority could validly form the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the State of Manipur. According to the learned Counsel, the said statements of the detenu recorded by the Police, which is at Annexure-N/3 to the writ petition, reveals sufficient evidence for the purpose of preventive detention. Mr. Amerjit N., the learned CGSC also supports the contention of the learned State Counsel and contends that the impugned detention order does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court.