W.P. (Crl.) No. 12 of 2006. Case: Lairenlakam Somondro Singh @ Somorendro @ Kenedy Vs State of Manipur and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | W.P. (Crl.) No. 12 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Dolen Ph., Adv.and For Respondents: Jallaluddin and N. Ibotombi Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | R.B. Misra and Maibam B.K. Singh, JJ. |
| Issue | National Security Act, 1980 - Sections 3, 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 8, 10, 14, 14(1); UA(P) Act, 2004 - Section 20; Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1980 - Section 14; General Clauses Act, 1980 - Section 21; National Security (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 ;Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22, 22(5) |
| Citation | 2006 (4) GLT 106 |
| Judgement Date | May 26, 2006 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
R.B. Misra, J., (Imphal Bench)
1. Heard Mr. Dolen Ph., learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. G.A.- appearing on behalf of the Respondents- 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for the Respondent No. 4.
2. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the said Respondent No. 4, Union of India been filed and placed on record along with response and counter-affidavits of State of Manipur and its authorities.
3. In this writ petition, prayer has been made to quash the detention order dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure-N/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 in exercise of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of 'Act 1980' read with the Central Government Home Department's order No. 17(1)49/80/11(Pt) dated 06.09.2005.
4. The questions for consideration are:
(i) whether the Central Government is duty bound and is under statutory obligation under Section 14(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short called 'Act 1980' hereinafter) to consider the report for revocation or modification sent by State Government under Section 3(5) of Act 1980 with reasonable expedition or at any stage as its convenience irrespective of fact that no representation was made for and on behalf of the detenu to the Central Government?
(ii) whether delay in disposal of representation of detenu by Central Government could be justifiable under 'Act 1980' without satisfactory explanation and reasons recorded existing on the record?
5. The facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the Petitioner was arrested by police personnel on 28.10.05 at about 3.30 p.m. from public bus parking for his alleged involvement under Section 20 UA(P) Act of 2004 for which FIR No. 171 (10)05 was registered and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and was sent to the police custody till 07.11.2005 which was subsequently extended upto 16.11.2005.
It appears that when the Petitioner was in judicial custody, the detention order dated 03.01.2006 in question was passed by the District Magistrate and grounds of detention were also conveyed to the Petitioner on 06.01.2006. The detention order was affirmed by the State Government on 13.01.2006. The Petitioner submitted the representation to the State Government on 16.01.2006 as well as to the Central Government on 16.01.2006. Whereupon, he was informed by the letter dated 17.01.2006 of the State Government that his representation has been considered and rejected. The representation of the Petitioner made to Chairman, Advisory Board through the Respondent No. 1, State Government was, however, not considered by the State Government. The State Government has sent the report of detention to the Central Government on 06.02.2006, but, the Petitioner was not apprised or conveyed to about the consideration of the report whereas the Petitioner's representation was considered by the Central Government by inordinate delay.
6. For and on behalf of the State Government/State authorities, it has been indicated that for involvement of detenu in the offences available on the record in exercise of power provided to the District Magistrate, the detention order has duly been passed and affirmed by the State Government and was promptly forwarded to the Central Government for necessary action.
7. For and on behalf of the Central Government, it is necessary to quote the relevant paragraph of the counter-affidavit as follows:
4. That with regard to para 8.2.14 and ground of para 21 of the petition, it is submitted that a report as envisage under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 about the detention of the Petitioner was made by the Govt. of Manipur to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter No. 17(1)/(984)/2004-II dated 17.01.2006. The said report was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 05.10.2005 and in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 06.02.2006 and the position noted by the concerned OSD (Security) who has been authorized to take note under Section 3(5).
5. That with regard to para 9, 15, 17 and ground g) h) of para 21 of the petition, it is humbly submitted that as per provisions of Section 8 of the NSA, the Petitioner on receipt of grounds of detention has right to make representation to the "appropriate government". As per definition of "appropriate government", the same in this case is the State Government of Manipur who is Respondent No. 1 and not the Central Government i.e. Respondent No. 4. Furthermore the time limit of 3 weeks stipulated in Section 10 is applicable in respect of disposal of representation made to the "appropriate government" which is Respondent No. 1 in this case.
6. That there is no legal obligation on Respondent No. 4 to call for representation from the detenu. In this case the representation dated 16.01.2006 made by the Petitioner was received by the Central Government and in the concerned section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 13.02.2006. It is further stated that along with the representation dated 16.01.2006, the parawise comments on the representation dated 16.01.2006, the parawise comments on the representation were not received from the State Government. The State Government vide our Wireless Message dated 13.02.2006, 21.02.2006, 28.02.2006, 07.03.2006, 14.03.2006 and Joint Secretary (Security)'s D.O. of even No. dated 23.03.2006 was requested to send the parawise comments on the representation. The Govt. of Manipur furnished the parawise comments and this was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 24.03.2006 and, in the concerned section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.03.2006 (25.03.2006 and 26.03.2006 were holidays being...
To continue reading
Request your trial