LIVINGSTONE B MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr R Kar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr P Dey, the learned counsel for the State and Mr R Deb Nath, the learned CGC appearing for the Union of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is the father of Shri Sengnang D Shira, who was detained by the respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (the Act) to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in the District of East Garo Hills, Meghalaya, or in any manner which would contribute to consolidate militant activities in the District. This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu. The earlier writ petition being WP(Crl) No.(SH)173 of 2011 filed before the Division Bench of this Court was disposed of in the following terms: -

(3.) IN terms of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner applied for and was issued all the relevant documents by the detaining authority. By means of this, the grievances of the petitioner dealt with in that judgment appeared to have been redressed by the respondent authorities. However, Mr R Kar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rongjam Momin vs Union of India and Ors, 2005 1 GauLJ 285, which obliged the detaining authority to inform the detenu of his right to make representation before the Central Government and which was not done, the infirmity in the impugned order remains, which vitiates the detention. On the other hand, Mr P Dey, the learned counsel for the State forcefully submits that this issue has already been raised by the petitioner in the earlier petition and the same was not decided by this Court. According to the learned State counsel, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is barred by constructive resjudicata from raising this issue again. He also contends that this Court must take into account the deterioting law and order situation in the Garo Hills where the detenu hails: this is not a case of ordinary law and order problem but is a case of threat to maintenance of public order as well as the security of the State. It is thus contended by him that this is not a fit case for interference of this Court as otherwise it will send a wrong signal to others who are now waiting in a line to file similar petition. According to the learned State counsel, as per the direction of this Court, the respondent authorities have already furnished all the relevant documents sought for by the petitioner and as such there is no infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. He, therefore, that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.