TINA KHONGJEE Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by one Mrs. Tina Khongjee, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the detention of her husband Shri Mayborn Rapthap, under Section 3 (1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that the detenu was lodged in jail having been arrested in connection with some criminal cases involving non-bailable offences. As he was taken ill during his confinement in the judicial custody, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Shillong, on 4. 5. 2007 for better medical are and attention. When he was thus admitted in hospital, he was served with detention order on 7th May 2007 followed by the grounds of his detention on the next following day i. e. 8. 5. 2007. However, no material documents and particulars relied on by the authority while passing the detention order were supplied to him alongwith the detention order. The detenu was merely supplied with the copies of the First Information Reports (FIRs) numbering three lodged in connection with the criminal cases. However, as the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the other relevant documents namely the FIRs being all in English language with which the detenu was not conversant, he was unable to file an effective representation. It was therefore contended that the impugned order of detention was void, illegal and ultra vires being violative of Articles 14,19,21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act, 1995.

(3.) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the answering respondent No. 4, the averments made by the petitioner that the detention order was first served upon the detenu followed by the grounds of detention one day later was not disputed. It was, however, denied that the grounds of detention served upon the detenu was only in English language. It was asserted that the grounds of detention served were both in English and in Khasi and the same was duly received by the detenue. It was also denied that the copies of the other documents and the FIR annexed with the grounds of detention were not legible. It was, therefore, contended that it was not correct to say that the detenue was not in a position to make any effective representation on account of the fact that the grounds of detention were only in English and the FIRs were not legible. According to the answering respondent, the detenue was duly informed of his right to make a representation pursuant to which he submitted a representation on 16. 5. 2007 through his mother which was forwarded to the Government in Political Department on 25. 5. 2007 and the same was placed before the Advisory Board on 12. 6. 2007. On receipt of the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the order of detention dated 17. 5. 2007 was duly approved and confirmed by the State Government. It was therefore contended that the impugned detention order has been passed according to law and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity.