HEGIN HAOKIP Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus questioning the legality and validly of the detention order dated 11.3.99 issued by the District Magistrate, Chandel against Paulin Soyang Haokip alias Soyang alias P.S. Haokip, son of late Paulin, a resident of Bijang (Tuibong) in the Churachandpur district, Manipur, under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the subsequent approval given by the Government to the continued detention of the detenu, which arose in the following circumstances:

(2.) The detenu, Paulin Soyan Haokip alias Soyang alias P.S. Haokip was arrested on 17.2.99 by the Army personnel at Moreh and he was handed over to the O.C., Moreh Police Station. A regular criminal case under FIR Case No. 6(2) of Moreh Police Station under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act was registered against the detenu. The detenu was arrested and thereafter the Police implicated him in a number of other cases. During the course of investigation of the case while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the criminal cases, he was served with the order of detention dated 11.3.99, passed by the District Magistrate, Chandel, Manipur, under the National Security Act, 1980 for acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The grounds for detention were furnished to the detenu on 15.3.99. The aforesaid detention order was approved by the State Government vide its order dated 20th March, 1999 issued by the Deputy Secy, to the Govt. of Manipur, Home Department. On 24.3.99, the detenu through the Addl. Superintendent of Central Jail, Sajiwa, Manipur, submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, challenging the detention order and by order dated 6.4.99, the detenu was informed by the Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of Manipur, Home Department, Imphal, about the rejection of his representation. Hence this petition challenging the order of detention.

(3.) We have perused the detention order as well as the grounds of detention furnished to this detenu. There is in fact no serious challenge to the satisfaction of the detaining authority, nor is there any such challenge as to the validity and legality of the grounds of detention, and in our view, rightly so. The real ground of challenge revolves round the question as to the continuance of detention on the ground of delay in disposal of the representation filed by the detenu. There is no controversy at the bar regarding the right of protection to the detenu as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. What is disputed is as to whether there was any delay in disposal of the representation. The right guaranteed under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India is two-fold viz., the authority making the order is entrusted with the duty to communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the order has-been made as soon as may be, after the order is passed; and that the detenu must also be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order.