TH IBOCHOU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri Thounaojam Ibochou Singh is challenging the order of detention of his son, Th. Brojen alias Romeo alias Korouhanba Singh, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, passed by the District Magistrate Imphal West on 23-1-2004 directing the detention of the said detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 and subsequent approval and confirmation of the said order by the State Government (AnnexuresA/1, A/2 and A/2-1).

(2.) There is no dispute in respect of the following facts : The detenu was arrested on 16-1-2004 at about 10.30 a.m. by police and an FIR case No. 16(1) 2004 Sing jamei P.S. under Section 10/13 U.A. (P) Act was registered against him. While he was in police custody, he was served with the said detention order (Annexure A/1) on 23-1-2004 at 3.30 p.m. The detention order was purpotedly made with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The grounds of his detention (Annexure A/3) dated 27-1-2004 was also furnished to him on 28-1-2004 by the Jail Authority. The detention order was approved on 31 -1 -2004 by the State Government (Annexure-A/2) and the copy of the approval order was furnished to the detenu on 4-2- 2004. The detenu submitted his representation dated 6-2-2004 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur through the Superintendent of Police Central Jail. Imphal with a copy to the District Magistrate, Imphal West. It was received by the District Magistrate only on 11-2-2004. The detenu was informed, vide letter dated 11-2-2004 (Annexure-A/7), that his representation was not considered by the District Magistrate, Imphal West as the detention had already been approved by the Government. The State Government confirmed the detention order on 4-3-2004 (Annexure-A/2-1) and it was served to the detenu on the same day.

(3.) We have heard Mr. M. I. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jalal learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents at length. The order of detention Is challenged on the following grounds: 1) the detenu's representation dated 6-2-2004 was not considered at any point of time; 2) the detention order was passed without application of mind; 3) the detenu was not given any chance or opportunity of submitting his representation to the Central Government and as such the detenu was deprived of his right under S. 14 of the N.S. Act.