Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 135 (MAN)

Thoudam Khamba Singh v. District Magistrate

2014-12-02

KH.NOBIN SINGH, LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The petitioner having been detained by order dated 25th March, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short "N.S.A.") has filed this writ petition challenging the said order of detention in Annexure-A/1. 2. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner joined a banned organization namely PREPAK in the first week of April, 2009 and took basic military training along with 15 new cadres in the district of Tamenglong. Thereafter, he was sent to Nepal and was again brought back in May, 2010 to carry out some organizational works such as mobilization, raising of funds by extortion from general public at Imphal. On 21st July, 2010, he was arrested and one 9 mm pistol with two live rounds were seized from his possession. While he was in judicial custody, by an order dated 4th August, 2010 he was detained under the NSA by the District Magistrate, Imphal West. He was released on bail in May, 2011 after the order of detention was revoked. Again he was arrested for the second time in 2012 and one 9 mm pistol with four live rounds were seized from his possession. When he was in custody in connection with the said case, another order of detention was passed on 12.6.2012. However, the said detention order was again revoked by the Court on 5.10.2012 and he was released. After being released, he stayed at home along with his family members and started to live a normal life. However, he again contacted the said organization in November, 2012 and started working for the organization. It is further alleged that he was involved in extorting money from the contractors. During investigation of FIR No. 166(8)2013, Singjamei P.S. it was revealed that the petitioner and another had taken shelter at a place at Mithapur, Bihar to evade arrest by police and accordingly, on 9.12.2013, a police team was deputed to arrest him. On 10.12.2013, he was arrested from a bus stand at Mithapur in the State of Bihar in connection with the above case and some documents were seized from him as mentioned in the grounds of detention. He was brought to Imphal after getting a transit warrant on 17.12.2013 and was produced before the Court. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. He was brought to Imphal after getting a transit warrant on 17.12.2013 and was produced before the Court. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. While in judicial custody, the impugned order of detention was passed on 25th March, 2014. 3. Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of detention basically on three grounds. "(i) Though the order of detention has been passed on allegation that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, there is no mention of breach of public order in the grounds of detention. (ii) There was delay on the part of the State Government in sending information to the Central Government with regard to approval of the detention of the petitioner under the NSA and such delay having not been explained, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. (iii) The representation addressed to the Central Government was also sent by the State Government after a long delay and such delay has also not been explained by the State Government." 4. With reference to the above grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that not a single incident in the grounds of detention has been said to be in breach of public order though the detention order has been passed solely on the ground of breach of public order. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that u/s. 3(5) of the NSA, the State Government is required to inform the Central Government regarding approval of the order of detention within 7(seven) days. But there was long delay in informing the Central Government about approval of the order of detention. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state respondents, no explanation has been offered as to why there was such long delay in informing the Central Government about approval of the order of detention passed against the petitioner. So far as the representation is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the representation addressed to the Central Government dated 8.4.2014 was forwarded by the State Government only on 22.4.2013 and delay of 14 days in sending the representation to the Central Government has not at all been explained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state respondents. Ms. Ms. Manomala, learned State counsel referring to the counter affidavit submitted that the delay in giving information to the Central Government regarding approval of the order of detention as well as the delay in remitting the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Central Government have been explained in the counter affidavit and such explanation should be accepted by the Court. So far as the first ground is concerned, it was contended by the learned State counsel with the grounds of detention clearly indicate that order of detention was not only for breach of public order but also for maintaining the security of the state. 5. The order of detention dated 25th March, 2014 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the grounds of detention, some incidents have narrated with regard to involvement of the petitioner in certain criminal activities and it is also stated in the grounds of detention that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order, the petitioner is required to be detained under the NSA. It is therefore, clear that the activities which are considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order appear not only in the grounds of detention but also in the order of detention. It is not in dispute that on two earlier occasions, once in 2010 and again in 2012, the petitioner had been arrested and while in judicial custody order of detention had been passed. On the first occasion, he was detained under the NSA on 4th August, 2010 but the said order was revoked by the Court and he was released. On the second occasion, he was arrested and thereafter, an order of detention was passed on 12.6.2012 but he was again released as the order of detention was revoked by the Court. He again got involved in the criminal activities and FIR No. 166(8)2013 was registered in the Singjamei P.S. for commission of offence u/s. 17/20 UA(P) A Act read with section 201IPC and section 5 of Expl. Subs. Act. On earlier two occasions, when he was arrested arms and ammunitions had been recovered from him. He again got involved in the criminal activities and FIR No. 166(8)2013 was registered in the Singjamei P.S. for commission of offence u/s. 17/20 UA(P) A Act read with section 201IPC and section 5 of Expl. Subs. Act. On earlier two occasions, when he was arrested arms and ammunitions had been recovered from him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the activities of the petitioner were not prejudicial to maintenance of public order. We, therefore, find no substance in the first ground taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. So far as the second ground is concerned, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, it appears that the order of detention was approved by the State Government on 3.4.2014 but there is no mention in the said counter affidavit as to when information regarding approval of the detention order was given to the Central Government. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it is stated that the State Government approved the order of detention on 3.4.2014 and it was reported to the Central Government as well as Advisory Board on 9.4.2014. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government, it is stated that the report envisaged u/s. 3(5) of the NSA was received on 24.4.2014 though it is dated 9.4.2014. 6. In view of the above stand taken in the three counter affidavits, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for production of dispatch register and accordingly, by order of the Court, learned State counsel produced the dispatch register. From the dispatch register, it appears that the said intimation was sent under letter No. 17(1)22/2014-H, Dt. 9.4.2014. On 10th April, 2014, there is an endorsement in the dispatch register that the letter could not be sent on 10th April, 2014 due to some technical problem in the post office and receipt attached under such endorsement shows that one letter had been dispatched on 11.4.2014. The register also shows that the very same letter was again sent on 24.4.2014, but it bears the date of 22.4.2014. Therefore, it is clear that the letter dated 9.4.2014 was possibly dispatched on 11.4.2014 and was received by the Central Government on 24.4.2014. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no delay in giving information to the Central Government about approval of the order of detention by the State Government. 7. Therefore, it is clear that the letter dated 9.4.2014 was possibly dispatched on 11.4.2014 and was received by the Central Government on 24.4.2014. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no delay in giving information to the Central Government about approval of the order of detention by the State Government. 7. So far as the delay in remitting the representation addressed to the Central Government is concerned, it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had submitted two representations, one to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and the other to the Central Government on 8.4.2014. The said representation was received by the Dealing Assistant on 10.4.2014. The representation was considered by the State Government on 22.4.2014 and was rejected. The representation addressed to the Central Government was forwarded by the State Government on 22.4.2014. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even though the representation of the petitioner dated 8.4.2014 addressed to the Central Government was received by the Dealing Assistant of the Chief Secretary on 10.4.2014, it was despatched to the Central Government on 22.4.2014. The delay of 12 days has not been explained. In para 5 of the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2, it is stated that 12, 13, 14, 18 and 20th April, 2014 were holidays on account of Second Saturday, Mahavir Jayanti, Cheiraoba, Good Friday and Sunday. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that though the office was opened on 15, 16 and 17th April, the representation was not forwarded to the Central Government and it was only forwarded on 22.4.2014. From the counter affidavit, it appears that 15, 16, and 17th April were working days. But rest of the days in between were holidays. The purpose of sending the representation to the Central Government is to ensure that the representation of the detenu is considered and disposed of as early as possible. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajammal -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 and submitted that what is important is explanation of delay and not duration or range of delay. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajammal -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 and submitted that what is important is explanation of delay and not duration or range of delay. Relying on the above decision, it was further contended that there being three working days in between, explanation given in the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2 is unacceptable. We are unable to accept such submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Central Government dated 8.4.2014 was received by the office of the Chief Secretary on 10.4.2014 and it was sent to the Central Government on 22.4.2014. Five days in between were holidays. We are therefore, of the view that the delay in sending the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Central Government was because of intervention of the Holidays and not because of the lapses on the part of the State Government. 8. In view of the discussion made above, we find no substance in any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and accordingly, decline to interfere with the impugned order of detention. Writ petition, being devoid of merit is dismissed.