JAISON HAOKIP Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order of detention dated 10 -5 -1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District and the order dated 15 -5 -1998 of the State Government of Manipur approving the said order of detention as well as the order dated 25 -6 - 1998 confirming the order of detention.

(2.) BY the order dated 10 -5 -1998 passed by the District Magistrate. Imphal West District, the petitioner was detained under the National Security Act. 1980. In support of the said order of detention dated 10 -5 -1998 of the District Magistrate grounds of detention were also furnished to the petitioner by letter dated 12 -5 -1998 of the District Magistrate. Imphal West District. In the said letter dated 12 -5 -1998 it was inter alia stated that on 4 -5 -1998 about 3 p.m. acting on reliable information about the presence of members of extremists organisation of Kukies known as Kuki National Front in the residence of the petitioner at Paite Veng Imphal a column of 57 Mtn Division along with police representatives raided the house of the petitioner and some arms and ammunitions with incriminating documents were recovered from the custody of the petitioner. In the said letter dated 12 -5 -1998 various facts have been stated and the grounds indicated as to why it was necessity to detain the petitioner for maintenance of public order and to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. In the said letter dated 12 -5 -1998 copies of various documents, which formed the basis of grounds of detention were also enclosed. Besides other grounds, the main ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the copies of some documents, which were enclosed alongwith the said letter dated 12 -5 -1998 were not legible and as a result the rights of petitioner under Article 22 -51 of the Constitution read with Section. 8 of the National Security Act. 1980 to effective representation against the said order of detention was affected and the detention of the petitioner under the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) MR . TH Ibohal Singh, learned GA. Manipur, on the other hand. Submitted that if the petitioner felt that he was unable to make an effective representation against the order of detention due to the fact that the some of the documents furnished along with the grounds of detention were illegible. He should have pointed out this fact to the concerned authority at the first instance instead of making a representation to the Central Government and the Advisory Board. The petitioner has not taken any such action in this case and has instead submitted a representation to both the Central Government and the Advisory Board taking all possible pleas against the order of detention. Mr. N. Ibotomi, CGSC, adopted the aforesaid arguments of the learned GA. Manipur and submitted that if the petitioner had at the first instance pointed out that illegible copies of documents have been furnished to him alongwith the ground of detention the authorities would have provided legible copies of the documents to him. But in the present case the petitioner has made a representation taking all possible grounds and the said grounds have not been found to be good by the Central Government and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Central Government as would be evident from the communication dated 14 -7 -1998 of the Under Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs to the petitioner.