JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the 3 (three) writ petitions based on same set of facts with same cause of action have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In the three writ petitions the detenues invoked are Sri Thamangjam Samson Singh (40yrs), Shri Huidrom Bhogen Meitei @ Chingkhei (28yrs) and Shri Khuraijam Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan (45yrs). They have been detained by three different orders of the same date i.e. 19.01.2010 passedby the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur exercising the power conferred under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. By the said orders, all the detenues have been detained under Section 3(2) of the said Act. 3. For a ready reference, one such detention order dated 19.01.2010 passed in respect of the detenu involved in W.P. (Crl.) No. 23/2010 is quoted below: ORDERS Imphal, the 19th January, 2010 No. Cril/NSA/No. 5 of 2010: Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Thamangham Samson Singh (40yrs), S/o Th. Jugindro Singh of Mayang Langjing Tamang, P.S. Lamshang, District-Imphal West, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Whereas, I.K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order; And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Thamangjam Samson Singh (40yrs), S/o Th. Jugindro Singh of Mayang Langjing Tmang, P.S. Lamshang, District-Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. Now, therefore, I.K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur m exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 3 of Section3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 10.11.2009 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in Police custody be detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 until further orders. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this nineteenth day of January, 2010. -Sd- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West. 4. The detenues were supplied with the grounds of detention by communication dated 23.01.2010. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this nineteenth day of January, 2010. -Sd- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West. 4. The detenues were supplied with the grounds of detention by communication dated 23.01.2010. The main ground of detention as indicated in the impugned communication dated 21.03.2010 addressed to the detenues is reproduced below: 2. That, after joining organization you came to know the following PLA members namely: Kh. Shanti Singh of Mana Ingkhol Maning Leikai, an important member of PLA (ii) Kh. Basanta Singh @. Kaka Basan (45 yrs) of Mayang langjing Tamang through H. Bhogen @ Chingkhei, Sri Kh. Shanti Singh directed you and yours associates to extort money from the general public government offices, private firms etc. located in Lamsang areas and to watch the movement of security forces for the free movement of PLA members. Accordingly, since the first part of December, 2009 your and your associates started to extort money from the general public, government office, private firms etc. and handed over the same to Shri Kh. Shanti Singh. Over and above, your house and the houses of your associates were used as transit camp and concealing places of arms and ammunition used by the PLA members. On 11.01.2010 Shri Kh. Shanti Singh handed over to Shri H. Bhogen Meitei @ Chingkhei the following arms and ammunition to be kept at the house of Kh. Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan to lay ambush to the security force before the Republic Day celebration 2010: (i) One Ak-56 assault rifle bearing No. M22N0018005 along with one magazine. (ii) One M-16A1 rifle bearing No. 5281968 along with two magazine. (iii) 30 (thirty) five rounds of AK ammunition. (iv) 100 (one hundred) live rounds of M-16 ammunition. Accordingly, on 12.01.2010 you and Kh. Basanta Singh kept concealed the arms and ammunition near Kh. Basanta Singh's house. 2. That, after release on bail by the court on 23.03.2002, you stayed at your house with your family members. But your could not stay longer in the normal life with your family members even though you were arrested by the security force and detained for months together in judicial custody as your were determined to work again for the organization. With this view in mind, in the last part of November, 2009, you contacted one Shri Kh. But your could not stay longer in the normal life with your family members even though you were arrested by the security force and detained for months together in judicial custody as your were determined to work again for the organization. With this view in mind, in the last part of November, 2009, you contacted one Shri Kh. Shanti Singh of Mana Ingkhol Maning Leikai, an important member of PLA and started to work for the organization under his command. Shri Kh. Shanti Singh directed you to recruit new volunteers of PLA and to extort money from the general public, government offices, private firms etc. located in Lamsang areas. Accordingly, in the 1st part of December, 2009 you had recruited two new volunteers namely, (i) Khuraijam Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan (45 yrs) of Mayang Langjing Mamang Leikai and (ii) Thamangham Samson Singh of Mayang Langjing Tamang and directed them to work with you under the command of Kh. Shanti Singh. Further Shri Shanti Singh directed you and yours associates to watch the movement of security forces in Lamsang area for the free movement of the PLA members. Accordingly, since the 1st part of December, 2009 you and you associates started to watch the movement of the security forces and passed on the information to the PLI members who were operating in Lamsang area. You and you associates also extorted money from the general public, government offices, private firms etc. located in Lamsang areas and handed over to Shri Kh. Shanti Singh. Over and above, your house and the houses of your associates were used as transit camp and concealing place of arms and ammunition use by the PLA members. On 11.1.2010 Shri Kh. Shanti Singh handed over to you're the following arms and ammunition to keep the same in the hour of Kh. Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan to lay ambush to the security force before the Republic Day celebration: (i) One Ak-56 assault rifle bearing No. M 22N0018005 along with one magazine. (ii) One M-16A1 rifle bearing No. 5281968 along with two magazine. (iii) 30 (thirty) five rounds of AK ammunition. (iv) 100 (one hundred) live rounds of M-16 ammunition. Accordingly, on 12.01.2010 you and Kh. Basanta Singh kept concealed the arms and ammunition near Shri Kh. Basanta Singh. 2. That, after joining the organization you came to know the following PLA members namely: Kh. (iii) 30 (thirty) five rounds of AK ammunition. (iv) 100 (one hundred) live rounds of M-16 ammunition. Accordingly, on 12.01.2010 you and Kh. Basanta Singh kept concealed the arms and ammunition near Shri Kh. Basanta Singh. 2. That, after joining the organization you came to know the following PLA members namely: Kh. Shanti Singh of Mana Ingkhol Maning Leikai, an important member of PLA (ii) Kh. Basanta Singh Kaka Basan (45yrs) of Mayang langjing Tamang through H Bhogen @ Chingkhei, Sri Kh. Shanti Singh directed you and yours associates to extort money from the general public government offices, private firms etc. located in Lamsang areas and to watch the movement of security forces for the free movement of PLA members. Accordingly, since the first part of December, 2009 your and your associates started to extort money from the general public, government office, private firms etc. and handed over the same to Shri Kh. Shanti Singh. Over and above, your house and the houses of your associates were used as transit camp and concealing places of arms and ammunition used by the PLA members. On 11.01.2010 Shri Kh. Shanti Singh handed over to Shri H Bhogen Meitei @ Chingkhei the following arms and ammunition to be kept at the house of Kh. Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan to lay ambush to the security force before the Republic Day celebration 2010: (i) One AK-56 assault rifle bearing No. M 22N0018005 along with one magazine. (ii) 0ne M-16A1 rifle bearing No. 5281968 along with two magazine. (iii) 30 (thirty) five rounds of AK ammunition. (iv) 100 (one hundred) live rounds of live rounds of M-16 ammunition. Accordingly, on 12.01.2010 you and Shri Th. Samson Singh concealed the arms and ammunition near your house in the presence of Shri H. Bhogen Meitei @ Chingkhei. 5. The orders of detention passed in respect of the detenues were approved by the Government of Manipur in the Home Department by orders passed on 29.01.2010 in respect of all the detenues. Conformation orders have also been passed on 05.03.2010. 6. 5. The orders of detention passed in respect of the detenues were approved by the Government of Manipur in the Home Department by orders passed on 29.01.2010 in respect of all the detenues. Conformation orders have also been passed on 05.03.2010. 6. In the writ petitions the Petitioners have enclosed the copies of representations made to the State Government and the Union Government to show as to how the authorities have shown the Petitioners involved in the same incident and also as to how they have been detained under the said Act alleging their involvement in the particular act opposed to the national security. In the representations made by the detenues various grounds have been urged towards assailing the impugned detention orders, which have also been reproduced in the writ petitions. 7. Since all the writ petitions are based on the same set of facts and the grounds urged are also the same, we have taken W.P. (Crl.) No. 23/2010 as the base case. In the counter affidavits filed by the State and the Central Government, the contentions raised in the writ petition have been denied. The Respondents have justified their action in passing the impugned orders of detention followed by the orders of approval and conformation. 8. In Para 4 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has stated the details of the facts which led to the arrest of the detenues in F.I.R. No. 2(1)/2010 LSG PS. Under Section 17/20 UA(P) A. Act 7 to 25 (1-C) A Act. It was on 20.1.2010 when the detenues were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate. the were served with the detention orders dated 19.01.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West and thereby detaining them under the provisions of National Security Act. 1980. 9. In Para-5 of the writ petition the ground urged is that the impugned orders of detention, purportedly based on a Police Report are all casual, mechanical and merely by reciting that the detenues are likely to be released on bail in near future by the normal Criminal Court as bails are granted in other similar case by the Criminal Court. According to the Petitioners, the particular recitation in the orders of detention impugned in this proceeding "and whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Thamangjam Samson Singh (40yrs.), S/o Th. Jugindro Singh of Mayang Langjing Tmang. P.S. Lamshang, District-Imphal West. According to the Petitioners, the particular recitation in the orders of detention impugned in this proceeding "and whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Thamangjam Samson Singh (40yrs.), S/o Th. Jugindro Singh of Mayang Langjing Tmang. P.S. Lamshang, District-Imphal West. Manipur who is now in Police custody. is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts" is on non-existent ground and the purported subjective satisfaction derived by the authority-towards detaining the detenues under the Act was without any cogent materials and that the said recitation was in a mechanical manner without being placed with any materials whatsoever justifying the orders of detention. 10. Another ground urged in the writ petition is that the grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and insufficient enough to deprive the detenues of their fundamental rights and liberty guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 11. We have heard Mr. Ph. Dolen. learned counsel appearing for the detenues as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Sr. Government Advocate, Manipur, appearing for the State Respondents. We have also heard Mr. A Naorem, learned Central Government Counsel representing Union of India We have also gone through the entire materials on record. In consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials on record and giving our anxious consideration to the same. We now proceed to deal with the same towards recording our findings and conclusions. 12. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners parties has placed reliance on few decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The decisions are reported in (2006) 2 S.C. 664: T.V. Suravanan @ S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. Stale through Secretary and Anr.; (2006) 9 SCC 711 : A. Shanthi (Smt.) v. Govt. of T.N. and Ors. and the four unreported judgments of this Court, which are dated 12.05.2010, 11.06.2009. 23.07.2010 and 28.05.2010 passed in W.P. (Cril) No. 6/2010: Shri Ksheinniavvm Indrajit Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.; W.P. (Cril) No. 113/2008: Ms. Vahnu Haokip v. State of Manipur and Ors.; W.P. (Cril) No. 112/2009: Smt. Maibam (N) Sorojini Devi v. State of Manipur: I.V.P. (Cril) No. 6/2010: Shri Laishram Tomha Meitei v. State of Manipur and Ors. 13. 23.07.2010 and 28.05.2010 passed in W.P. (Cril) No. 6/2010: Shri Ksheinniavvm Indrajit Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.; W.P. (Cril) No. 113/2008: Ms. Vahnu Haokip v. State of Manipur and Ors.; W.P. (Cril) No. 112/2009: Smt. Maibam (N) Sorojini Devi v. State of Manipur: I.V.P. (Cril) No. 6/2010: Shri Laishram Tomha Meitei v. State of Manipur and Ors. 13. Learned State Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 676 : Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Anr. All the decisions have been pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the parties to buttress their respective arguments advanced in support and against the impugned orders of detention. 14. Mr. Ph. Dolen, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that subjective satisfaction purportedly derived and recorded in the impugned detention orders dated 19.01.2010 being not based on any cogent materials and even if, such satisfaction is said to be based on some materials, the said materials having not been furnished to the detenues, the impugned orders are vitiated. In this connection, he has referred to Section 8 of the Act. Section 8(1) provides that: when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. Section 8(2) provides that: the provisions in Section 8(2) in refer to above shall not require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against public interest to disclose. 15. In response to Para-5 of the writ petition in which the Petitioner has contended that the materials pertaining to the Police Report etc. having not been furnished to him prejudice was caused to his defence, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 that the Police Report of the Case Diary being confidential document was not furnished to the detenues. As noted above. Section 8(2) of the Act provides that: nothing in Sub-Section 1 of Section 8 shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against public interest to disclose. The stand in the affidavit is that since the documents contained in the Case Diary are confidential in nature, the detenues were not supplied with the same. Section 8(2) of the Act provides that: nothing in Sub-Section 1 of Section 8 shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against public interest to disclose. The stand in the affidavit is that since the documents contained in the Case Diary are confidential in nature, the detenues were not supplied with the same. We are of the considered view that such non-furnishing of documents on the ground of being confidential, does not meet the exception envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act which is public interest. It is not the case of the Respondents that the documents were not furnished as the same would be against public interest. 16. In T.V. Saravanan (supra) the Apex Court under somewhat similar circumstances referring to its earlier decisions held that in absence of any cogent materials before the detaining authority on the basis of which, the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail would vitiate the detention order. It was further held that, interference to be drawn from the materials available on record and in the absence of any such materials, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention. Following the said decision, this Court in the aforesaid decisions in Shri Kshetrimayum Indrajit Singh (supra), Ms. Vahnu Haokip (supra), Smt. Maibam (N) Sarojini Devi (supra). Shri Laishram Tomba Meitei (supra) has under similar circumstances interfered with the respective detention orders. It is in this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the said decisions. 17. The aforesaid decision in T.V. Saravanan (supra) has been followed in A. Shanthi (Smt.) (supra) reiterating the principle discussed in the said judgment. In Para-4 of the judgment it has been observed thus: In similar circumstances, this Court in T.V. Saravanan v. State directed release of the detenu. Counsel for the State is unable to distinguish that judgment. This Court in T.V. Saravanan has held that the "imminent possibility" of the Appellant coming out on bail is merely ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention. 18. Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned State Counsel has placed reliance on Senthamilselvi (supra) so as to contend that recitation in impugned order that: the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal Criminal Court as bails are granted in similar cases by the Criminal Courts. is indicative of the materials available towards recording such a satisfaction. In the said decision it was held by the Apex Court that, the conclusion that detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. In that particular case, the Apex Court found that the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there was likelihood of detenu being released on bail and such conclusion was on the basis of the materials before the said authority. 19. In the instant case, nothing has been disclosed as to what were the materials before the detaining authority towards deriving the subjective satisfaction that the detenues are likely to be released on bail, except the recitation in the routine manner that there is likelihood of releasing the detenues on bail by the normal Criminal Court as bails are granted in similar cases by the Criminal Courts. To derive such a subjective satisfaction, materials will have to be there before the detaining authority. As to what were those materials towards deriving the subjective satisfaction, have not been disclosed. 20. Further, as noted above, the stand of the Respondent No. 2 in the affidavit is that the materials contained in the Case Diary were not disclosed to the detenues as the same are confidential in nature. It is one thing to say that the materials are confidential in nature, but it is Anr. thing to say that there cannot be disclosure of facts in the public interest. It is not the case of the Respondents that the disclosure was not made to the detenues in public interest. What they have contended is that the materials were confidential in nature. 21. Above being the position we need not go into the other grounds urged in the writ petitions, one of which is the ground of detention being vague and indefinite. What they have contended is that the materials were confidential in nature. 21. Above being the position we need not go into the other grounds urged in the writ petitions, one of which is the ground of detention being vague and indefinite. The ground of detention as disclosed in the communication dated 1.3.2010 states about the involvement of the detenues with the particular militant organization. Their association with the said organization is stated to be from the first part of December, 2009. Although it states about extortion of money by the detenues from the general public, government office, private firms etc. but there is no disclosure of any materials/particulars in respect of said unlawful activities on the part of the detenues. It is in this context, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the ground of detention lacks material particulars and is founded on vague and indefinite statement of facts. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of our findings recorded above on other grounds urged. 22. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed by interfering with the impugned orders of detention passed on 19.01.2010. Consequently, the orders of approval and confirmation dated 29.01.2010 (Annexure N/3) and 5.3.2010 (Annexure N/6) are also set aside and quashed. The detenues namely, (i) Shri Thamangjam Samson Singh (40yrs.) (ii) Shri Huidrom Bhogen Meitei @ Chingkhei (28yrs.) and (iii) Shri Khuraijam Basanta Singh @ Kaka Basan (45yrs.) shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case(s). Petition allowed.