VUXUTO ACHUMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the elder brother of the detenu Vitoshe Sema, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the detention order, Annexure-5, dated 15-2-1997, as passed by the respondent No.2, in exercise of power u/s 3 (2) (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act). The grounds of detention are:

(2.) The basic facts constituting the aforestated grounds are contained in the Schedule attached to the grounds of detention, the relevant facts are extracted therefrom and reproduced below for ready reference: Detenu was apprehended by Security Forces from LRC Colony, Dimapur on 10-9-1996 alongwith incriminating documents one fire arm (Pistol) with 5 rounds of 303 BDR Ammunition. On receipt of FIR from the Security Force, Dimapur (West) P.S. Case No. 0188/96 u/ss 120(B)/ 121/ 121(A)/122/124(A) read with Sections 10/13 UA(P) Act was registered and investigated. The detenu had left a Government job as a Block Development Officer in March 1990 and had voluntarily joined the unlawful Association named National Socialist Council of Nagaland. (1M) The documents seized from him bear the proof of his antisocial and illegal activities. Shri Vitoshe Serna. SS Secretary is therefore, a hardcore high ranking functionary of an unlawful Association who has taken active part in numerous illegal, activities in furtherance of the cause of the unlawful Association viz. National Socialist Council of Nagaland which has been indulging in successionist struggle. Such activities included large-scale extortion of money from. Government servants, businessmen and innocent public, crossing over the international border to meet other high ranking functionaries of the said Association in Dhaka. Bangladesh in 1995 for purchase of arnisi ammunition to wage war against the established Government, and remmittance of 2 (two), crores of rupees to Shri Issac Chishi the SS President of the unlawful Association NSCN (1M) at Bangkok in 1995 for this purpose.

(3.) The facts constituting the grounds of detention as noted above, leave no manner of doubt that they are germane to and have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by passing the detention order. They are specific and proximate in point of time, fully justifying the detention order. Therefore, all that remains to be seen is whether the inbuilt procedural safeguards as provided in the Act have been followed by the detaining authority?