ANJANA DHEKIAL PHUKAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate representing the detaining authority. Mr. H. Rahman, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India apepars for the Central Government.

(2.) Petitioner, who is the wife of Robin Dhekial Phukan has filed the present petition to challenge the detention order dated 13.12.2007 issued against her husband, hereinafter referred to as "the detenu", whereby the District Magistrate, Tinsukia in purported exercise of power under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the NSA, ordered detention of the detenu for a period of 3 months. The substance of the detention order is extracted as below :

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the detenu that the impugned detention order dated 13.12.2007 is liable to be interfered with in view of the fact that the detaining authority was not conscious of the fact and accordingly there was non-application of mind to relevant fact that an earlier detention order passed on 11.09.2007 and that this Court quashed the said detention order on 11.12.2007. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relies upon the Supreme Court's decision reported in (1987) 2 SCC 241, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Manoharlal Narang. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that detention order is vitiated on account of the fact that the second detention order cannot be passed in the event of quashing of the earlier detention order passed against the detenu. The detention order is also challenged on the ground that the second detention order has been passed without any fresh materials and records and the existing facts and materials, which were relied upon to pass the first detention order dated 11.9.2007 has also been relied on for passing the impugned detention order. It is also contended that at that time of passing the impugned detention order dated 13.12.2007, the detenu was already lodged in Jail in connection with Doomdooma Police Station Case No. 141/07 and no bail application on behalf of the detenu was filed or pending on that date seeking release from custody and there was no possibility of imminent release of the detenu and accordingly the detention order was not legally justifiable.