T.NK Singh, J.;- 1. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenue, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents 1,2 and 3 as well as Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. At the very outset of hearing Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenue boldly submitted that the present case is one of the extreme cases where the detaining authority had come to the subjective satisfaction that activities of the detenue' are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('NSA') and for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detenue is required to be detained under the NSA, is based on no material. 3. We are very much conscious of our limited jurisdiction of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the matters relating to detention matter. It is fairly well settled that exercise of power for preventive detention by the executive authority is under the jurisdiction known as 'jurisdiction of suspicion'. The Apex Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Secy, to Government and Anr., 2011 (4) Scale 387 (para 40) held that: "40. It must be remembered that in cases of preventive detention no offence is proved and the justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability, and there is no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Preventive detention is often described as 'jurisdiction of suspicion,' - Vide State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613 para 63. The detaining authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Since clause (3) of article 22 specifically excludes the applicability of clauses (1) and (2), the detenue is not entitled to a lawyer or the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest." 4. In catena of cases, the Apex Court held that in the case of preventive detention. Court is required to see as to whether suspicion for which the detenue is placed under detention is reasonable or not. Further, this court is not required to see if the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based on sufficient materials or not. In catena of cases, the Apex Court held that in the case of preventive detention. Court is required to see as to whether suspicion for which the detenue is placed under detention is reasonable or not. Further, this court is not required to see if the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based on sufficient materials or not. What is concerned with this court is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for placing the detenue under detention on the suspicion that detenue, if not detained under the preventive detention law, he will continue to indulge his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is reasonable or not. 5. Petitioner-detenue was once arrested in connection with FIR No.110 (5) 2008 SJM P.S. under section 39(1) UA(P) A. Act on 24.5.2008. When he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 28.5.2008 he was released on bail by the court. The original Ezahar of the said FIR, i.e., FIR No. 110(5)2008 SJM PS under section 39(1) UA(P) A. Act read as follows : "To The Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West District. Sir. I have to report that today, i.e., 24.5.2008 at about 1 p.m. received a reliable information that some unknown youths were loitering in and around at Haobam Marak Keisani Leikai with view to commit prejudicial activities like extortion of money from general public. Acting above information, I along with my party a column of 32 AR have rushed the place and conducted cordon and search. During the cordon and search, one youth came out from the backdoor of" his house with suspicious manner. We stopped him for questioning, on spot questioning, he identifies as Komgkham Birkumar @ Bebe 31 yrs. s/o K. Rajendro of Haobam Marak Keisam Leikai. He is a member of P.L.A. sympathiser. Hence, he was arrested at 2 p.m. and handed over to you for further legal necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (L. Rameshwor Singh) Hav.0696109 of CDO I/E This report is treated as an O.E. Of case FIR No. 11(5)08 SJM PS Under section 39(1)UA(P)Act. Sd/- Illegible. OC Singjamei PS 24.5.2008. 6. He is a member of P.L.A. sympathiser. Hence, he was arrested at 2 p.m. and handed over to you for further legal necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (L. Rameshwor Singh) Hav.0696109 of CDO I/E This report is treated as an O.E. Of case FIR No. 11(5)08 SJM PS Under section 39(1)UA(P)Act. Sd/- Illegible. OC Singjamei PS 24.5.2008. 6. On perusal of the said original Ezahar, it appears that the detenue was arrested on suspicion that he is a sympathiser of the banned organisation, i.e., P.L.A. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 28.8.2010 in connection with FIR case No.74 (8)2010 NBL P.S. under section 20/17 UA(P)A. Act and remanded into police custody till 4.9.2010. The informant of the said FIR, i.e., FIR case No. 74(8)2010 NBL P.S, is one namely. B. Lunthang Vaiphei. Inspector of Police, Manipur Police Deptt. The said O.E. read as follows : "To The Officer in-Charge, Nambol Police Station. Subject: - Report. Sir, I am to report that today, i.e., 22.8.2010 at @ 2.30 p.m., received a reliable information from source that some unknown UG elements are loitering in and around the area of Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai. Based on the information, I along with Inspector. M. Sudhir Kr., OC/CDO BPR and police team rushed to the said area and starting frisking and checking along the Tiddim Road. During so, one Santro Xing Car along with two occupants was stopped for verification. On spot verification, the occupants identified themselves as (i) Mathurabastimayum Tarjit Sharma @ Tombapu @ Tomba (42) S/o M. Gourachandra Sharma of Kongba Kshetri Leikai and (ii) Thoudam Premchandra Singh (38) S/o Th. Mangi Singh of Toubul Mayai Leikai. They further disclosed that they are active cadres of the banned outfit KYKL (MDF) who had joined in the month of Jan. 2008 through one s/s Cammander, K.YKL (MDF), Nobin @ Khuman of Tumukhong. Tarjit @ Tombapu @ Tomba further disclosed that he is working as the Commander, Finance of KYKL (MDF) of the valley districts of Manipur. He had demanded money from different Government and non-Government offices like the Social Welfare Dept., RIMS, MACS. Family Welfare, MOBC, etc., hence, both were arrested on 22.8.2010 at 3:20 p.m. from the spot by observing formalities. Further. He had demanded money from different Government and non-Government offices like the Social Welfare Dept., RIMS, MACS. Family Welfare, MOBC, etc., hence, both were arrested on 22.8.2010 at 3:20 p.m. from the spot by observing formalities. Further. 2(two) mobile handsets along with SIM cards and one Santro Xing Car were seized from them possession of Tarjit and 3 (three) mobile handsets along with SIM cards were seized from the possession of Premchandra by observing formalities. Both the arrested persons and the seized articles are handed over to you for further necessary legal actions. Dated 22.8.2010. Yours faithfully, Sd/- B. Lunthang Vaiphei Inspector, CDO/BPR." 7. The statement of the informant. Inspector B. Lunthang Vaiphei, was recorded by the SDPO. Bishnupur under section 161, Cr.PC read as follows : - "Statement of B. Lunthang Vaiphei, Inspector of Police Dept. now posted at the CDO Unit Bishnupur is recorded under section 161, Cr.PC in c/w FIR No. 74(8)/2010 NBL P.S. under section 20/17 UA(P)A. Act I am serving as an Inspector in the Manipur Police Department and now posted at the CDO unit Bishnupur. On 22.8.2010 at @ 2.30 p.m., I received a reliable information from source that some unknown UG elements are loitering in and around the area of Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai. Immediately, I informed to my OC/BPR Inspector, M. Sudhir, where he told me to organize a police team. Accordingly based on the information, I along with Inspector. M. Sudhir Kr, OC/CDO BPR and police team rushed to the said area and starting frisking and checking along the Tiddim Road. During so, one Santro Xing Car along with two occupants was stopped for verification. On spot verification, the occupants identified themselves as (i) Mathurabastimayum Tarjit Sharma @ Tombapu @ Tomba (42) S/o M. Gourachandra Sharma of Kongba Kshetri Leikai and (ii) Thoudam Premchandra Singh (38) S/o Th. Mangi Singh of Toubul Mayai Leikai. They further disclosed that they are active cadres of the banned outfit KYKL (MDF) who had joined in the month of Jan. 2008 through one s/s Commander, KYKL (MDF), Nobin @ Khuman of Tumokhong. Tarjit @ Tombapu @ Tomba further disclosed that he is working as the Commander, Finance of KYKL (MDF) of the valley districts of Manipur. He had demanded money from different Government and non-Government offices like the Social Welfare Department, RIMS, MACS. 2008 through one s/s Commander, KYKL (MDF), Nobin @ Khuman of Tumokhong. Tarjit @ Tombapu @ Tomba further disclosed that he is working as the Commander, Finance of KYKL (MDF) of the valley districts of Manipur. He had demanded money from different Government and non-Government offices like the Social Welfare Department, RIMS, MACS. Family Welfare, MOBC, etc., hence, both were arrested on 22.8.2010 at 3.20 p.m. from the spot by observing formalities. Further, 2(two) mobile handsets (one NOKIA 1680 and one NOKIA 3110c) along with SIM cards (one Vodafone and one Airtel) and one Santro Xing Car bearing registration No.MNOlW-8422 which was driven by Tarjit were seized from the possession of Tarjit by preparing a formal seizure memo. Again 3(three) mobile handsets (one Sony Erricson, one ZEN and one NOKIA) along with SIM cards were recovered from Premchandra and were seized from the possession of Premchandra by observing formalities. Both the seizures were made at the same time, i.e., at 3.25 p.m. and from the spot where they were arrested i.e. from Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai along with Tiddim road. Constable Aslam Khan and Rfm. S. Kemai were the witnesses in the seizure procedure by putting their signatures on the seizure memo prepared by me. Both the arrested persons and the seized articles are handed over to OC/NBL PS for further necessary legal actions. ROAC Recorded by Sd/- S.P. Bishnupur Sd/- SDPO BPR." 8. On perusal of the said O.E. and the statement of the informant, it appears that the petitioner-detenue is not involved in the said FIR inasmuch as the informant, in his statement, did not even whisper about the involvement of the petitioner-detenue in the said FIR. Over and above, name of he petitioner-detenue is not mentioned in the said FIR. 9. The learned District Magistrate, Imphal West District issued the impugned detention order dated 3.9.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No.17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 7.8.2010 for detaining the petitioner-detenue. Over and above, name of he petitioner-detenue is not mentioned in the said FIR. 9. The learned District Magistrate, Imphal West District issued the impugned detention order dated 3.9.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No.17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 7.8.2010 for detaining the petitioner-detenue. In pursuance of section 8 of the NSA the learned District Magistrate, Imphal West furnished the grounds of detention to the petitioner-detenue, copy of the grounds of detention is available at Annexure A/2 to the present writ petition; and in para 4 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention are furnished to the petitioner-detenue. For easy reference, para 4 of the grounds of detention dated 7.9.2010 is quoted below : "4. That, the copies of the following documents which form the basis of grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your reference : - (a) Your statement given before the I.O. on 23.8.2010. (b) Statement of Inspt. B. Lunthang Vaiphei, CDO/Bishnupur recorded under section 161, Cr.PC in connection with 74(8)2010 NBL-PS under section 20/17 UA (P)A. Act 2004. (c) Copy of Arrest Memo dated 22.8.2010. (d) Copy of Notification under No.SC 2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. (e) Copy of FIR No. 110(5)/2008 S/DS under section 39(1) UA(P)A. Act 2004. (f) Copy of FIR No. 74(8)72010 NBL PS under section 20/17 UA(P)A. Act. (g) Copy of Government of Manipur, Home Departments' order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 7.8.2010." 10. On perusal of the para 4 of the grounds of detention, it is crystal clear that the detaining authority had come to the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order basing on the seven documents mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention. Copies of the seven documents mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention are also annexed in the present writ petition and we have gone through the same. On such perusal it is clear that the said documents do not implicate the petitioner in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. Copies of the seven documents mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention are also annexed in the present writ petition and we have gone through the same. On such perusal it is clear that the said documents do not implicate the petitioner in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. As stated above, this court has the limited jurisdiction for judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and this court exercises it in the extreme case where the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on no material. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the present case is one of the such extreme cases where this court interfered with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority based on no material. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we have no alternative except to interfere with the detention order dated 3.9.2010, the approval order dated 13.9.2010 and the confirmation order dated 21.10.2010. Accordingly, the detention order dated 3.9.2010, the approval order dated 13.9.2010 and the confirmation order dated 21.10.2010 are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner-detenue, namely Kongkham Birkumar Singh @ Bebe (34 yrs.) S/o K. Rajendro Singh, be released forthwith if he is not wanted in connection with any other case.