TONGBRAM NILABABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ph. Dolen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

(2.) There is no dispute in respect of the following facts : Shri Tongbram Shyamkumar Singh @ Shyamkesho @ Thoiba, hereinafter referred to as "the detenu" was ordered to be detained under National Security Act, 1980, vide order No. Cril/NSA/No. 18 of 2009 dated 26.3.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, purportedly with a view to prevent the said detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention vide letter No. Cril/NSA/No. 18 of 2009 dated 31.3.2009. At the time of passing the said detention oder, the detenu was in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 88 (3) 2009 IPS under Section 17/20 UA(P) Act and 25 (1-B) A Act. Allegations as against the detenu are to the effect that after joining the banned organization, namely, Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK in short), he and his associates extorted huge amount of money from Engineer and other staff of PWD for the banned organization and that he and his associates threatened officers/engineers with dire consequences to give work orders to contractors nominated by the said banned organization. Further allegations as against the detenu are that in view of his tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by him in the proximate past as a hard-core member of the said banned organization, the District Magistrate, Imphal West was satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, he, being a hard core member of the said organization, would continue to indulge in the same activities prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order and that application of normal criminal law would not at all be effective to prevent him from commission of further prejudicial activities. The State Government approved and confirmed the above said detention order vide orders dated 04.04.2009 and 06.05.2009 respectively.

(3.) This writ petition has been filed by the father of the detenu challenging the legality of his son's detention under National Security Act, 1980 on various grounds. One of the grounds submitted by the counsel of the petitioner is that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu are vague lacking in particulars and other details and thereby the detenu's right of making an effective representation as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been denied. In this connection, learned counsel of the petitioner draws our attention to the grounds of detention dated 31.3.2009, a copy of which is available at Annexure-N/2 to the writ petition, particularly at para No. 2 of the said grounds of detention and submits that the acts alleged therein are vague and as such, the detenu's right of making an effective representation as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been denied. Paragraph No. 2 of the said grounds of detention is as follows:-