JUDGMENT : 1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed challenging the detention order dated 30.04.2018. The detention order is based on the police report placed before the District Magistrate, Imphal East and in it is alleged that the detenue is acting in the manner prejudicial to security of State and maintenance to public order. While passing the order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, reliance is placed on the grounds of detention dated 3rd May, 2018. The detaining authority on the basis of the report was aware that the detenue who was already arrested for the offences in relation to FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C) A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21 (a)(b) ND & PS Act. The detenue was handed over to the officer-in-charge of the police station and was taken to judicial custody and lodged in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The detaining authority, however, was of the view that the conduct of the detenue over a period of time was acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and therefore, thought it fit to invoke Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detaining authority in the detention order observed as follows : “Whereas, the accused person has filed a bail application dated 21st April, 2018 in the Court of Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur and on the basis of material placed before me, I am satisfied that Shri Sanabam Gunajit Mangang @ Ngongo @ Laba (40 yrs) S/o S. Dabaljit Mangang of Uripok Kabrabam Leikai, P.S. Imphal, District-lmphal West, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future since the person has applied bail application in the Court of Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur; Now, therefore, I, Th. Chitra Devi, District Magistrate, lmphal East District, Manipur in exercise of the power conferred upon me by Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H (Pt-I) dated 7th February, 2018 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in police custody be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 until further orders.” 2. The detention order dated 04.05.2018 and the grounds of detention running to four pages was served with annexures of documents on the detenue. The detention order dated 04.05.2018 and the grounds of detention running to four pages was served with annexures of documents on the detenue. The list of documents supplied are referred to in para 11 of the grounds of detention which reads as follows : “11. Copies of the following documents which forms the basis of the grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your ready reference; i. Your interrogation statement recorded on 19.03.2018. ii. Statement of complaint Jem, Ch. Bedanta Meitei, JC No. 811 of 7th MR now attached with CDO/IE, in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21 (a)(b) ND & PS Act. iii. Statement of seizure witness Rfm. No. 1710209 S. Charanjit of 7th IRB now attached with CDO/IE, in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. iv. Statement of seizure witness Rfm No. 6070249 Md. Abdul Qudus of 6th IRB, now attached with CDO/IE in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20U/A(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. v. Statement of seizure witness, Wahengbam (O) Usharani Devi (36 yrs.) W/o. Ramananda Singh @ Luwangba @ Rousow of Kontha Khabam Makha Leikai recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. vi. Copy of arrest memo dated 13.3.2018. vii. Copy of Seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 08.50 am and seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 09.30 pm. viii. Copy of FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. ix. Copy of Msg. from Spl. PP to Spl Court NDPS asking for Bail objection report of the I.O. of the case. x. Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. S.O. 3440(E) dated 13th November, 2013. xi. Home Dept, Govt. of Manipur Order No. 17(1)49/80-H(Pt.-1) dated 7th February, 2018.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The detaining authority while referring to the educational qualification of the detenue observed that detenue is a member of Students Federation and also involved with various underground groups. The detaining authority observed that from as early as 2012 he was involved in various activities which are opposed to security of the State and also involved in offences against individuals. The detaining authority while referring to the educational qualification of the detenue observed that detenue is a member of Students Federation and also involved with various underground groups. The detaining authority observed that from as early as 2012 he was involved in various activities which are opposed to security of the State and also involved in offences against individuals. Specific reference has been made to incident on 19th June, 2014 in para 4 of the grounds of detention which reads as follows : “4. That, on 19th June, 2014 at about 0700 hrs, a team of DBI, Imphal arrested you from the rented house located at Uttam Nagar, Delhi in c/w killing of Prof. Islamuddin at Manipur University in 2009. You were lodged at Sajiwa Jail in c/w the case. Later in last week of December, you were released from the Jail on bail.” 4. In the grounds of detention, there are certain instances which refers to his unlawful activities. It also refers to the detenue proposing to surrender of cadres of KCP PWG. Para 6 of the grounds of detention reads as follows : “6. That, on January, 20, 2018, on request by Mr. Paikhomba, you went to Kakching Lamkhai in c/w the proposed surrender of cadres of PWD and met Mr. Paikhomba. During the meeting Mr. Paikhomba requested you to meet Mr. Ravi Shanker (Spiritual leader) by visiting Bangalore for seeking appointment for meeting the Union Home Minister, Mr. Rajnath Singh in c/w the proposed surrender of cadres of PWG. On 23rd January, 2018, you proceeded to Bangalore to meet Shri Ravi Shanker and met him the following day. You further, requested on behalf of KCP-MC/PWG to arrange for appointment to meet the Union Minister (Home) Mr. Rajnath Singh. You were handed over the following documents to Shri Ravi Shanker- i. Declaration of disarm. ii. Charter of demand. Note:- the Charter of demand include the following- i. Inclusion of Meitei Mayek in India currency notes. ii. Up-gradation of Manipur Rifles to Brigade. iii. Recognition of Meetei/Meitei in ST. iv. To declare Manipur State as Tribal State. v. Installation of petrochemical industries in Manipur. vi. Establishment of Special Economic Zone with 40% share to the State Govt. vii. To provide Govt. job to the cadres. viii. A package of 10 lacs each to each & every cadre. ix. To establish a designated camp at Kwatha village. iv. To declare Manipur State as Tribal State. v. Installation of petrochemical industries in Manipur. vi. Establishment of Special Economic Zone with 40% share to the State Govt. vii. To provide Govt. job to the cadres. viii. A package of 10 lacs each to each & every cadre. ix. To establish a designated camp at Kwatha village. x. To establish an education institute at Langol. Later, Mr. Paikhomba contacted you through Facebook through facebook profile name “SEKMAI JOU” and informed that you were staying in Nepal. You also inform him about the details of the meeting with Shri Ravi Shankar. Mr. Paikhomba treated you as his advisor. Sometimes, Mr. Paikhomba used to discuss with you when you faced any problem.” 5. The recent activity of the detenue is relating to the period February, 2018 onwards which relates to threat to educational institutions for the purpose of getting seats for students in Catholic schools of Manipur, which are religious institutions. In para 8 of the grounds of detention the incident is referred to as follows : “10. That, on 12th march, 2018 at about 1800 hrs, you went to the residence of Mr. Ramananda, Kontha Ahallup Makha Leikai as he requested. During your meeting, Mr. Ramananda requested to allow to stay his eldest son at your Coaching centre at Khuyathong Polem Leikai, Imphal West. In the meantime Mr. Sushil also arrived at the residence of Mr. Ramananda. Subsequently (at about 1800 hrs) a team of CDO/IE in civil dress rushed to the residence of Mr. Ramananda and detained you. The CDO seized your mobile handset (Samsung-J2) along with one Vodafone SIM Card (8794959921). The CDO took you along with Mr. Ramananda to the CDO/IE and interrogated there. On the next day on 13.3.2018 around 1000 hrs S.I. Uttam came to the CDO/IE computer along with personnel of 6th Bn. A.R and started interrogating you. On the same day at about 1200 hrs. Mr. Uttan informed you that Mr. Nelson @ Aken @ German manage through your facebook A/c working to collect to something. On the next day on 13.3.2018 around 1000 hrs S.I. Uttam came to the CDO/IE computer along with personnel of 6th Bn. A.R and started interrogating you. On the same day at about 1200 hrs. Mr. Uttan informed you that Mr. Nelson @ Aken @ German manage through your facebook A/c working to collect to something. On further, questioning of the 2nd detainee, he disclosed that one Nelson of your outfit had informed you through your mobile messenger that one 9 mm pistol with magazine and some rounds along with some explosive were kept concealed besides the bus stand at Langdum Lamkhai and on the disclosure of you, recovered one black plastic polythene bag containing one 9mm pistol along with magazine fitted with four rounds, one IED along with detonator and two mines were recovered by observing necessary formalities in presence of the independent witnesses at 9.30 p.m. It refers to FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20 UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. Thus you were handed over to Officer-in-Charge, Heingang PS on 13.3.2018 at about 11.50 pm for taking up further necessary legal action. Now, you are in Judicial custody, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.” 6. Para 12 of the grounds of detention relates to reasons given by the detaining authority to invoke Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on the fact that the detenue has filed the bail application and there was a likelihood of his release on bail. In para 13 a right has been given to the detenue to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as the Central Government and also the detaining authority within the time specified. 7. The detenue while in judicial custody was served with the preventive detention order. After receiving the detention order, grounds of detention with annexure of documents, detenue made a representation on 8th May, 2018 inter alia pleading that some of the documents supplied are not clear and readable and that the document in para no. 11(ii) of the grounds of detention is not supplied but an irrelevant document is supplied and therefore, his right to make an effective and meaningful representation is affected. His constitutional right is infringed. 11(ii) of the grounds of detention is not supplied but an irrelevant document is supplied and therefore, his right to make an effective and meaningful representation is affected. His constitutional right is infringed. The request for getting clear copy of the document reads as follows : “It is to state that the documents which has been furnished to me along with the grounds of detention is not in full text (as some portion of the pages is not included in the Photostat copy) and as such I request your good self to provide me the full text documents so that I can give an effective representation to the concern authority for releasing me by cancelling the detention order. The said list of documents which does not contain full text is as follows : 1. Copy of Seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 08.50 am and seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 09.30 pm. [mentioned in (vii) of para no. 11 of Grounds of detention u/s 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 dated 03-05-2018]. 2. Copy of Report filed by Jem. Ch. Bedanta Meitei, JC No. 811 of 7th MR now attached with CDO/IE [which report was treated as OE of case FIR No. 41(3) 18 HNG PS u/s 20 U(A) P, 25 (1-C) A. Act, 5 Expl. Sub. Act & 21 (a) (b) ND&PS Act].” 8. The documents which are not clear and illegible are at page 8 of the original file submitted by Shri Y. Ashang which is a report of the officer Superintendent of Police, Imphal East dated 13.03.2018 to the officer-in-charge, Imphal East. The annexed documents at page 10 are not readable. The top portion of the document is cut off. The time is also not legible. Similarly, page 11 of the original file is the seizure memo and it does not show the time. In two documents, time is not very clear. These documents are at page 46, 47, 49 50 of the writ petition. The report of the officer running to several pages is not clear on the edges and the document is unreadable. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel of petitioner that because of supply of illegible documents his right to make a representation is affected. Further, in spite of specific request, clear documents are not furnished and therefore, the detention order is bad. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel of petitioner that because of supply of illegible documents his right to make a representation is affected. Further, in spite of specific request, clear documents are not furnished and therefore, the detention order is bad. Learned counsel placed reliance on 1989 Supp (2) SCC 155, Smt. Dharmista Bhagat vs State Of Karnataka and Anr. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads as follows : “3. Against this impugned order rendered by the High Court the instant appeal has been filed before this Court. The sole contention advanced before this Court on behalf of the appellant is that the non-supply of legible copies of the vital documents referred to in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in spite of the representation to that effect made by the detenu renders the impugned order of detention illegal and bad in as much as the detenu was prevented from exercising his right to make an effective representation against the purported order of detention issued against him, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It has been urged in this connection that the document, panchnama (mahajar) dated February 12,1988 which has been specifically referred to in the list of documents supplied paripassu with the grounds of detention was not legible. The detenu immediately after receipt of the grounds made a request to the detaining authority on May 21, 1988 for giving him typed copy of the said document. This request was turned down by the detaining authority and no legible or typed copy of the said document was supplied to the detenu to enable him to make his effective representation against the impugned order of detention made under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.” Further, in response to the request for legible copy of documents, an affidavit has been filed by the State of Manipur but the grounds raised are not denied. There is therefore a clear infraction of detenue’s rights. 9. Further, reliance is placed on (2009) 11 SCC 438 in the case of Thahira Haris and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others to canvass the plea that relied upon document has not been supplied. There is therefore a clear infraction of detenue’s rights. 9. Further, reliance is placed on (2009) 11 SCC 438 in the case of Thahira Haris and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others to canvass the plea that relied upon document has not been supplied. A perusal of the document referred to in para 11(ii) of grounds of detention and the documents supplied makes it clear that the document supplied is not what is relied upon. There is clear violation of the rights of the detenue in as much as his right to make an effective representation against the detention order has been curtailed by non supply of relied upon document. In the reply also there is no reference to supply of the said document. In this the issue raised by the learned counsel for the detenue, what has been relied in para 11(ii) of the grounds of detention is FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A.Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. Whereas at page 40 and 42 of the writ petition and the original file the document supplied is relating to FIR No.41(3)2018 HNG-PS U/S (Section not clear) UA(P) A. Act, 25(1-C) A.Act, 5 Expl.Sub Act & 21(a)(b) ND&PS Act along with other document like statement of witness relating to FIR No. 41(3) 2018 and another statement of witnesses relating to FIR No.41(3)2018 HNG PS. In the grounds of detention also the detaining authority referred to FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS but what is supplied in FIR No.41(3). Therefore, it is clear that relied upon document has not been supplied. Therefore, his right to make effective representation has been curtailed. A perusal of the original file reveal that in the grounds of detention what has been relied in para 11 (ii) is FIR No. 43(03) 18 of the police report and what has been supplied is FIR No. 41(3) 2018 HNG. Page 17 of the original file is FIR and witness statements are at page 15 and 14. All the above documents relate to FIR No. 41(3) 2018 HNG police station. Therefore, the plea of the detenue that his right to make an effective representation has been affected is established. There is no explanation from the detaining authority and the State as to why they have not supplied the relied upon document. All the above documents relate to FIR No. 41(3) 2018 HNG police station. Therefore, the plea of the detenue that his right to make an effective representation has been affected is established. There is no explanation from the detaining authority and the State as to why they have not supplied the relied upon document. It is therefore evident that the detaining authority has not supplied the relied upon document and has supplied the irrelevant documents. In this regard it will be useful to refer to paras 29,30,31,32 and 33 of (2009) 11 SCC 438 in the case of Thahira Haris and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others which reads as follows : “29. There were several grounds on which the detention of the detenu was challenged in these appeals but it is not necessary to refer to all the grounds since on the ground of not supplying the relied upon document, continued detention of the detenu becomes illegal and detention order has to be quashed on that ground alone. 30. Our Constitution provides adequate safeguards under clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 to the detenu who has been detained in pursuance of the order made under any law providing for preventive detention. He has right to be supplied copies of all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any delay. The predominant object of communicating the grounds of detention is to enable the detenu at the earliest opportunity to make effective and meaningful representation against his detention. 31. On proper construction of clause (5) of Article 22 read with Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act, it is imperative for valid continuance of detention that the detenu must be supplied all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. 32. In the instant case, admittedly, the relied upon document, the detention order of Anil Kumar was not supplied to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from making effective representation which has violated his constitutional right under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. 33. Consequently, we accept these appeals. The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.” In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that relied upon documents referred to in para no. 33. Consequently, we accept these appeals. The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.” In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that relied upon documents referred to in para no. 11(ii), FIR No. 43(03) 2018 HNG PS has not been supplied to the detenue and consequently his right to make effective representation has been curtailed. The detention order is bad for the above stated infirmities. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to allow the petition. The impugned detention order No.Cril/NSA/1/2018 dated 30th April, 2018 is quashed and detenue is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.