M JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, for short "the Act" while he was serving as Executive Engineer under the Public Works Department, Manipur. His detention was felt necessary by the District Magistrate, (South) Churachandpur to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner on 22.11.1981, which was well within time as the order of detention is dated 20.11.1981. They read as follows : - "1. That you gave a written commitment voluntarity to PLA to give contract worth Rs. 1 lakh initially and worth Rs. 3 lakhs finally while you were posted at Churachandpur.

(2.) THAT you supplied explosives to outlawed extremist organisation namely PLA in the month of April, 81 while you were working as EE/PWD, Churachandpur.

(3.) THAT you gave shelter in your residence to PLA members from time to time while you were posted at Churachandpur". 2. As we have come to the conclusion that the order merits to be set aside because the last of the above grounds has to be regarded as vague, we would confine our attention to the contentions relating to that ground. It is not disputed before us, that if one of the three grounds were to be regarded as vague, the entire order has to yield. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate General, however, is that the third ground should not be regarded as vague, though it neither contains the names of the PLA members who were given shelter in the residence of the petitioner, nor does specify the date or period then they were so sheltered. By referring to Sheoraj prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 1143 : (1975 Cri LJ 936) and Bhawarlal v. State of Tamil Nadu. AIR 1979 SC 541 : (1979 Cri LJ 462) it is contended that if the detenu had regarded the ground as vague he could have asked for more particulars. Learned Advocate General is however fair in bringing to our notice Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate, Kamrup, AIR 1974 SC 183 : (1974 Cri LJ 286) wherein it has been stated in paragraph 65 : - "If a ground communicated to the detenu is vague, the fact that the detenu could have, but did not, ask for further particulars is immaterial..."