CHUMATHO POCHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain common features of the writ petitions had permitted analogous hearing of the same. Accordingly, the same here being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts of W.P. (Crl.) No. 4/2009 may be noticed for an illustrative exposition of the factual matrix of the cases under consideration. The petitioner in the said writ petition was detained by an order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Dimapur. Through the said order recites Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the source of its power, the Court will have to understand the reference to the said provisions of the Act as Section 3(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the grounds for detention were not furnished to the detenu along with the detention order dated 6.12.2008. In two of the cases i.e W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 4/2009 and 7/2009, the said grounds were not furnished even within the maximum time contemplated by Section 8 of the Act. As a matter of fact, the District Magistrate did not formulate or prepare the grounds for detention at all in any of the present cases. The same was done by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department at the time of approval of the detention orders. The said approval was accorded in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4/2009 and 7/2009 beyond the time stipulated by Section 3(4) of the Act though in W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 6/2009 and 8/2009, the approval order was passed within the said period. The common question that, therefore, arises is whether in the absence of the grounds of detention prepared by the detaining authority and formulation and preparation of the same by the approving authority would vitiate the detention orders which are the subject matter of the challenge in each of the cases under consideration.

(3.) Sri. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Murari Aggarwala Vs. Union of Indis & Ors. reported in (1975) 4 SCC 481 and in the case of Dhananjay Das Vs. District Magistrate, Darrang & Anr, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 521. On the basis of the aforesaid authorities, Sri Mishra tried to persuade the Court that the question arising in the writ petitions need to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the detenus. Sri Mishra has further contended that the writ petitions have been structured on other available grounds which he may be allowed to urge, if required.