KSHETRIMAYUM MAIPAK DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner the mother of the detenu viz. Kshedtrimayum Noyon Meitei alis Laba alias Hemanta alias Ibohal Achouba (46), son of Ksh. Amu Singh Meitei of Sekta Awang Leikai, P.S.Lamlai, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, sought for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention order dated 21.4.99, of the detenu who was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention was passed on 21.4:99 by the District Magistrate, Imphal East and the grounds of detention was served on him on 29th April, 1999 through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. The detenu submitted his representation challenging the detention order dated 21.4.99 on 7th May, 1999 through the Jail Superintendent. The order of detention of the detenu was confirmed by an order dated 2.6.99 further fixing the period of detention of the detenu for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention.

(2.) Mr. HNK Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his challenge to the detention order only on the ground of breach of the mandate of Section 8(1) of the Act. The learned senior counsel drew our attention to the detention order and submitted that while the order was passed on 21.4.99, the grounds of detention were served on him only on 29.4.99, i.e. beyond the period prescribed by the Statute. Mr. H NK Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that in the affidavit also, respondent No. 4 the District Magistrate, failed to explain as to why the grounds of detention could not be served on the detenu within the period prescribed. The learned senior counsel submitted that Section 8 of the Act defines the outer limit for service of such grounds. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 8(1) of the Act, when a person is detained pursuant to an detention order under the Act, the authority making the detention order "as soon as may be" and ordinarily "not later than five days", is to communicate to the detenu the grounds of detention on which the order is made affording him the "earliest opportunity" of making a representation against such detention order before the appropriate authority. The scheme of the Act further provides an outer limit beyond five days, but not later than ten days from the date of detention only in "exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing". The learned counsel submitted that this is the mandate of the Statute which enacted from the spirit of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Since in the case in hand, apparently there was a breach of Section 8(1) of the Act, there is no justification for continuance with the order of detention passed against the detenu, submitted the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Th. Ibohal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government, relying on the affidavit filed by the respondents/State, sought to support the detention order and further submitted that the grounds of detention were duly served on the detenu within time. As to the date on which the grounds of detention were served, the learned Govt. Advocate fairly submitted that the grounds for detention was served on the detenu on 29.4.99. From the records of the proceedings and the relevant files, it does appear that the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 29.4.99, which also contained an endorsement of the officer of the Jail authority to the effect "Received the same copy thereby, 6.5.99, 5-30 P.M." From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is now no doubt/dispute that the grounds of detention were not served on the detenu within the time specified.