GURUMAYUM RAJATKANTA SHARMA @ PROMISE @ GERMAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was initially arrested on 02.08.2007 in connection with Tengnoupal Police Station Case No. 14(8)2007. While the petitioner was still in police custody, he was shown arrested in connection with Singjamei P.S. Case No. 135(5) of 2007 Under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1 -B) of Arms Act read with Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1947. While the petitioner was still in police custody, he was brought under provisions of National Security Act, 1980 vide order No. CRIL/NSA/No. 39 of 2007 dated 14.08.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition, which has been filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Kh. Mani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Shri C. Kamal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India (respondent No. 3).

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that it is the settled position of law that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be reviewed in the writ petition. In support of this submission, learned Govt. Advocate relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and Ors. : 1990CriLJ1238 ; Gurdev Singh v. Union of India and Ors. : 2001(78)ECC459 and Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. reported in : 2006CriLJ4605 . In addition to that, learned Government Advocate also submitted that in identical cases, this Court had also refused to interfere with the detention order in WP (Cril) No. 26 of 2006 and WP(Cril) No. 51 of 2007.