TOIJAM Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has assailed the detention order dated 8-4-99 of her husband T. Lokeshore Singh who was arrested on 9-3-99 in connection with the Cri. N.S.A. No. 1 of 1999 under Ss. 3(2) and 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 in the following circumstances : The husband of the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 9-3-99 and thereafter vide order dated 8-4-99 the detenu was detained under S. 3(3) of the National Security Act with a view to prevent him to do any act which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The ground of detention was served on the detenu on 12-4-1999 and his detention was confirmed on 11-5-99 by the State Government. The detenu submitted his representation on 27-4-99 and according to the Petitioner, till filing of the petition, the detenu did not receive any communication about the disposal of the representation. Learned counsel Mr. H. S. Paonam submits that the detenu was communicated the rejection of the representation only on 1-6-99 in the Manipur Central Jail which the detenu received on 2-6-99. The learned Government Advocate, however, cited the original order dated 17-5-99 showing that the representation of the detenu was disposed of on 17-5-1999.

(2.) Mr. H. S. Paonam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/detenu has challenged the order of detention on numerous grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits that detaining authority fell into serious error in exercising its discretion mechanically and passing the detention order without application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. Mr. H. S. Paonam, the learned counsel for the petitioner also questioned the order of detention on the ground that since the detenu is already under arrest in connection with criminal case there was no ground for detaining him under the National Security Act. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged further order of detention for violation of the provision of clause 5 of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India in causing delay in disposal of the representation.

(3.) Mr. Kh. Nimaichand, Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, CGSC appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively seriously contested the case.