N. Ranbir Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal — 1995 DIGILAW 169 (GAU)

H. K. Sema, J--Shri Naoroibam Ranbir Singh @ Tompok @ Rocky was detained in exercise of power under sub-section (c) of section 3, read with section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter the Act) by an order dated 14.2.1995. Thereafter, detention order was confirmed by an order dated 8.3.1995. 2. Along with the detention order, the detenu was served with grounds of detention and the documents which formed the basis of the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows : “(1) That in the month of July, 1992 you, Ranbir Singh had joined out-lawed-organisation called Peoples Liberation Army (PLA in short) through one Shri Maibam Kesho Singh @ Piba of Kwakeithel Heinoukhongnembi, S/S Commander of Division No.4 of PLA. Thereafter by using the code name as 'Rocky' to conceal your identity from general public was as well as security personnel, you had started to work for PLA as an over ground member. Over and above your house was used as sheltering place of Piba and Sanjit, hardcore members of PLA. (2) That in the month of January, 1993 you, along with Shri Huirongbam Rajdhon Singh @ Lukhoi of Singjamei Waikhom Leikai collected a list of schools from Keishampat to Malom and handed over demand letters as per instruction of M. Kesho Singh @ Piba. Since February, 1993 to September, 1993 you had collected Rs. 18,000/- per month from 18 schools which are located within the areas from Keishampat to Malom as monthly tax and the collected money was deposited to Piba. (3) That on 10.1.1994 at about 11.30 AM when you were arrested from the house of Smti M. Ibomcha Devi (44) W/o M. Gopal Singh of Chanam Pukhri Mapal Sorokhaibam Leikai you were found possessing one fake driving licence having photograph of yourself but issued in the name of M. Ranjit Singh, S/o Chandra Singh, and two leaflets published by RPF on 14.5.93 under its Caption as ' I CHAOREN N A MEEYAMDA PEEPA PAOJEL' which were seized by the Police later on from your possession. A case under FIR No.22 (1) 94 under section 121AIPC, 13 UA (P) Act and 4 (i) (ii) TDA (P) Act was registered at Police Station Singjamei after your arrest on 10.1.1994 and you were remanded to Police custody till 19.1.1994 in c/w the above noted case. On the same day ie 10.1.94 you were formally arrested in c/w FIR No.284(10)93SJM-PS under section 121/121A/3 84/34 IPC, 25(l B)Arms Act and 3 (2) (ii) TDA (P) Act, and FIRNo.285 (10) 93 SJM-PS under section 121/121A/ 326/307/34 IPC, 25 (1) (A) Arms Act, and 3 (2) (ii) TDA (P) Act and remanded to Police custody till 19.1.94. You were remanded to judicial custody on 19.1.94 in c/ w the above noted three cases. Since then you are still in Jail.” 3. The detenu also supplied with the history sheet along with the grounds of detention. Para 15 of the history sheets reads : “It is reliably learnt that bail is being moved by the parents of Shri Naoroibam Ranbir Singh @ Tompok @ Rocky and there is every possibility of his being enlarged on bail by the Court. In view of the prejudicial activities committed by Shri N. Ranbir Singh @ Tompok @ Rocky in the proximate past, it can reasonably be presumed that he would continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order as and when he be enlarged on bail. So, application of normal criminal laws against him is not at all effective to prevent him from his prejudicial activities. In the interest of preventing him for carrying out further prejudicial activities some alternative preventive measures is therefore immediately called for. It is therefore, recommended that the provision of National Security Act, 1980 may be invoked against Shri N. Ranbir Singh @ Tompok @ Rocky of Singjamei Pebia Pandit Leikai with a view to detaining him and accordingly recommended that detention order under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (Act 65 of 1980) may be issued against him.” 4. The detention order has been a sailed on 4 (four) grounds : (1) Detention order has been passed without any application of mind. (2) Material documents relied upon by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the petitioner, thereby deprived the detenu for making effective representation. The detention order has been a sailed on 4 (four) grounds : (1) Detention order has been passed without any application of mind. (2) Material documents relied upon by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the petitioner, thereby deprived the detenu for making effective representation. (3) Inordinate delay in disposing of the representation filed by the detenu, and (4) Non supply of translation of grounds of detention to the detenu in Manipuri language. Ground No. 1 : It is contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh that, it appears clearly in para 15 of the history sheet furnished to the detenu that the bail application has been moved by the parents of detenu. However, this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention, and further, that no copy of the bail application moved on behalf of detenu has been served along with the grounds of detention, and as such, the detention order is vitiated for non-application of mind. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India & another, (1990) 2 SCC 1 . In that case, the Apex Court had observed that: “The detenu has the right to be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the documents relied on. If there is failure or even delay in furnishing those documents it would amount to denial of the right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5). It is immaterial whether the detenu already knew about their contents or not. The question of demanding the documents is also wholly irrelevant and the infirmity in that regard is violative of Article 22 (5).” (underline is ours). 5. The ratio of this decision is of no help to the petitioner's case. As already said, the detenu was supplied with the documents which forms the basis of detention along with the detention order. Admittedly, bail application filed by the parents of the detenu was not the documents filed along with the grounds of detention. In other words, the bail application filed by the parents of the detenu does not form the basis the grounds of detention. Therefore, the bail application was not relied upon by the detaining authority which formed the basis of the grounds of detention. The contention of counsel for the petitioner on this ground therefore failed. In other words, the bail application filed by the parents of the detenu does not form the basis the grounds of detention. Therefore, the bail application was not relied upon by the detaining authority which formed the basis of the grounds of detention. The contention of counsel for the petitioner on this ground therefore failed. Ground No.2 : Mr. Nilamani Singh has referred to para 6 of the ground of detention and makes a submission that the detenu was found possessing one fake driving licence and leaflets published by RPF on 14.5.93 which was seized by the Police but this documents were not furnished to the detenu and thereby deprived the detenu for making effective representation. 7. It is further submitted by the counsel that two leaflets seized by the Police, only one leaflet has been furnished to the detenu. 8. Counter on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been filed. It is stated in para 6 of the counter that two leaflets published by RPF and seized from the possession of the detenu are both the publication dated 14.5.93 under the same caption, and as such, furnishing to the detenu of one leaflet does not cause any prejudice to the detenu's case. It is also averred in the same para that fake licence seized from the possession of the detenu is not related with the outlawed organisation, and non-furnishing of the said documents does not prejudice the detenu. 9. As already said, along with detention order the documents which formed the basis of grounds of detention has been furnished to the detenu. Fake licence seized from the possession of the detenu is not the document which the detaining authority relied upon as one of the grounds of detention. As the fake licence seized from the possession of the detenu is not related with the outlawed organisation, and not prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, non supply of such documents to the detenu does not prejudice the detenu from making effective representation. What the law requires to the supplied to the detenu is the material documents which forms the basis of the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authorities. What the law requires to the supplied to the detenu is the material documents which forms the basis of the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authorities. Therefore, non supply of documents which does not forms the basis of the grounds of detention and which are not relied upon by the detaining authorities would not vitiate the detention order. Therefore, the second ground also failed. 10. Ground No.3 : The detenu filed a representation on 1.3.95 which was transmitted by the Superintendent of Jail on the same day to the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government forwarded the representation to the Central Government by its latter dated2.3.95 and was received by the Central Government on 9.3.95. The Central Government by its WT message dated 10.3.95 seeks some vital information from the State Government. The State Government after collecting the information sent the required information on 22.3.95. This was received by the Central Government on 29.3.95. Thereafter, the representation of the detenu was disposed on 5.4.95. 11. It is contended by Mr. Nilamani Singh that the State Government has negligently delayed for 11 days in sending the required information to the Central Government and this would vitiate the detention order. In this connection, counsel has referred to the following decisions of the Apex Court : (a) KM Abdulla Kunhi and BL Abdul Khader vs. Union of India & others, (1991) 1 SCC 476 , where the Apex Court had held that: “Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and reemphasised by a series of decisions of this Court.” The Apex Court further observed in the same para that: “There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. This has been emphasised and reemphasised by a series of decisions of this Court.” The Apex Court further observed in the same para that: “There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (b) Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India & others, (1989) 3 SCC 277 , the Apex Court had held that: “Representation must be considered with reasonable expedition and unexplained delay of 7 days on the part of Jail Superintendent in transmitting the representation to Central Government as a result of which the representation reached the Government 11 days after it was handed over to Jail Superintendent, held to be vitiated the detention.” (c) Rama Dhondu Borade vs. VK Saraf, Commissioner of Police & others, AIR 1989 SC 1861 , the Apex Court had held that: “Delay of 14 days in receipt of further information unreasonable and vitiate the detention order.” 12. The law on the point has now undergone changes after the recent decision of the Apex Court. 13. In Ram Sukrya Mhatre vs. RD Tyagi, AIR 1994 SC 1134 , the Apex Court following the decisions in Abdul Salam Alias Thiyyan vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1990 SC 1446 ) held in para 7 of its judgment as under : “7. This Court in Abdul Salam Alias Thiyyan vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1990 SC 1446 ) to which one of us (K. Jayachandra Reddy, J) was a member elaborately considered the entire case law on the question of delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government and held that no hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time can be laid down and each case has to be considered from the facts presented therein and that if there is no negligence of callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts in that case, it does not warrant interference. The need to make a reference to all the decisions once over is thus obviated. We respectfully agree with the ratio therein.” (underline is ours) 15. Counter on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Union of India has been filed. Delay explained in paras 3 and 4 of the counter. The need to make a reference to all the decisions once over is thus obviated. We respectfully agree with the ratio therein.” (underline is ours) 15. Counter on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Union of India has been filed. Delay explained in paras 3 and 4 of the counter. It is averred in paragraph 3 that the representation dated 1.3.95 of the detenu was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9.3.95 through the Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the representation was immediately processed for consideration but it was found that certain vital information for consideration needs to be obtained from the State Government, and a WT message dated 10.3.95 was sent to the State Government for vital information. 16. It is further averred that the Government of Manipur sent the required information by letter dated 22.3.95 and the same was received by the Central Government on 29.3.95. After the receipt of the required information on 29.3.95, the representation of the detenu was put up before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 29.3.95 itself. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary considered the case and put up the same before the Special Secretary MHA with his comments on 30.3.95. Thereafter, the Special Secretary considered the matter and put up the file before the Home Minister on 31.3.95. The Home Minister, after duly considered the case of the detenu rejected the representation of the detenu on 2.4.95. 17. From the averments made in paragraph 3 and 4 of the counter of the respondent No.3 it clearly appears that, no delay has been caused to dispose of the representation filed by the detenu. In facts the representation of the detenu has been disposed of with a sense o urgency and with promptitude. 18. Further, considering the communication bottleneck being faced by the States in the North Eastern Sector am the obtaining law and order situation in which one is put under constant fear psychosis, delay of 11 days in collecting vital information from various sources by the State for transmitting to the Central Government, in our view, was quite permissible. The contention of the counsel on this ground therefore also failed. 19. Ground No.4 : From the history sheet furnished to the detenu and not disputed by him, the detenu appeared in HSLC examination” in 1987 and passed in third division. The contention of the counsel on this ground therefore also failed. 19. Ground No.4 : From the history sheet furnished to the detenu and not disputed by him, the detenu appeared in HSLC examination” in 1987 and passed in third division. He got himself admitted in Class XI at Johnstone Higher Secondary School and continued there upto XII. In 1989, detenu appeared in Class XII examination and passed in third division. In 1990, he got himself admitted in TDC 1st year (Art) at Manipur College. After appearing promotion examination of TDC 1st year, he discontinued TDC 2nd year. In 1992, he again admitted at NG College Lamphel in TDC 2nd year. 20. It is further averred in para 8 of the counter of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the detenu has passed TDC 2nd year in 1993. It is also averred that medium of instruction of those Colleges are in English. It is common knowledge that a person read upto TDC 2nd year in English medium would have workable knowledge of English. Therefore, non-supply of translated copies of grounds of detention in Manipuri would not in any way prejudice the case of the detenu for making effective representation. 21. In the result, there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner on all grounds, and this petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.