TAOREM ONGBI KENIKA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant petition is the wife of the detenu, who is presently under detention under the National Security Act. Before his detention the detenu was arrested on 26.12.2011 by a team of CDO/Imphal West from Singjamei parking area and implicated in police case being FIR Case No. 407(12)/11 SJM PS under Sections 17/20 UA(P) Act read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and remanded to police custody till 31.12.11. He was produced before the Court on 31.12.11 for judicial remand and was served with an order of detention dated 31.12.2011 passed against him by the Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur). The District Magistrate by his letter dated 3.1.2012 furnished the grounds of detention to the detenu under Sections 17/20 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as NSA in short). The respondent/ State Government by an order dated 5.1.2012 approved the impugned detention order whereupon he submitted a representation dated 7.2.2012 addressed to the respondent No. 3 (Union of India) through the Secretary of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi. The detenu also submitted a representation dated 7.2.12 addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board through the Superintendent of Manipur, Central Jail. The Advisory Board, after deliberation and consideration of the materials on record, unanimously found that there was/is sufficient cause for detention/ continued detention of the detenu under the NSA and accordingly the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government and fixed the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. The petitioner challenges the impugned detention order dated 31.12.2011 and the subsequent order of approval dated 5.1.2012 as well as the confirmation order dated 3.2.2012. Heard Mr. Ph. Dolen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Reisang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amarjit Noarem, learned CGSC, appearing for the Respondent No. 3.

(2.) Mr. Dolen learned counsel submits that the impugned order of detention is illegal and unsustainable under the law inasmuch as it was passed by the District Magistrate without satisfying himself that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. He further submits that the District Magistrate, while passing the detention order relied on documents and materials which are not relevant and connected with for detention of the detenu.

(3.) Secondly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the detenu submitted the representation addressed to the Advisory Board through the jail authority, as was done in the present case, the State Govt. is not absolved from constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to consider the representation submitted by the detenu on the ground that it was not addressed to it. The State Govt. is cast with the duty to consider and deal with the representation as early as possible even if the detenu's representation is received by the Govt. after the meeting of the Advisory Board. Further he submits that the Govt. still has to consider the representation, if any, even after the order of detention has been confirmed. The specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case the State Govt. is duty bound to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the detenu, no matter whether it was submitted directly to the Advisory Board without addressing a copy thereof to the State Govt. In this regard he relies on the following case laws -