AVIKHO ANGAMI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V. Theyo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, representing the State respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his order of detention dated 16th January, 2014, followed by the order of approval dated 23rd January, 2014 of the Government of Nagaland, signed by the Chief Secretary. The order of detention was confirmed by order dated 7th March, 2014. The representation made by the petitioner against his detention was rejected by the Government of Nagaland vide order dated 26th February, 2014. The Central Government also rejected his representation. The Advisory Board also found sufficient ground for detention of the detenu.

(2.) The ground on which the impugned order of detention has been assailed is in respect of the derivation of subjective satisfaction. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the ground of detention, which are quoted below:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended since there is no material to show derivation of subjective satisfaction and in the writ petition a specific plea has been raised, it was incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to swear the affidavit filed instead of swearing the same by the Chief Secretary of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on some decisions, which are Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., 2010 9 SCC 618; in Ringkahao Horam & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors.,1997 2 GauLT 419; in Jutika Chakraborty Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 2013 5 GauLT 785and the unreported judgment dated 9th September, 2014 passed in WP (Crl.) No. 15(K)/2014.