ORDER :

Leave granted.

Since the matter was fixed for final arguments as per the earlier direction of this Court given in its order dated 15.5.2015, we have heard the case finally.

2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the validity of judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed by the High Court in writ appeal No. 28/2013. By the said judgment the appeal Court has upheld the order and judgment dated 13.6.2013 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and by the order dated 13.6.2013 the High Court had affirmed the detention order dated 29.1.2013 which was passed against the appellant herein.

3. On going through the detention order we find that as per detaining authority, a new militant outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) has come into existence in Garo Hills in Meghalaya and two persons, namely, the appellant herein as well as one Mr. Sohan D. Shira are the founders thereof. It is also alleged in this detention order that this militant organization has unleashed a reign of terror on the peace loving citizenry by executing criminal activities like extortion, kidnapping for ransom, ruthless murders of businessmen and traders, criminal intimidation to create a tear psychosis to suit their nefariouis designs. It is to prevent the occurrence of the aforesaid alleged acts on the part of this organization the detaining authority founded fit to detain the appellant.

4. The detention order also takes note of the fact that there are many criminal cases which are pending against the appellant. Particulars of 8 such cases are given in the detention order. It is further recorded in this order that in connection with those cases the appellant has been arrested and is in judicial custody. Thus, it becomes clear that as on the date of passing of the detention order, the appellant was already under arrest and in judicial custody.

5. The appellant was also supplied with the ground of detention on the same day which are reproduced in the impugned judgment in entirety. Apart from reproducing the contents of the detention order as grounds of detention, particulars of cases which are pending trial against the appellant are given in some detail. At the end, it is mentioned that in accordance with Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 8(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995, the detenu has a right to make a representation against the order of detention of the Government, addressed to the District Magistrate East Garo Kites District Williamnagar and the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Political Department, Shillong. The appellant had made a representation to the State Government which was rejected.

6. It is, thereafter, he challenged the order of detention and the rejection of his representation by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Meghalaya and further appeal to the Division Bench, both of which have been dismissed, as noted earlier.

7. Various contentions are advanced by the learned senior counsel questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment. It is not necessary to traverse all those arguments as we are of the opinion that this appeal warrants to be allowed on one ground itself, as would be noted hereinafter.

8. Coming to the ground on which we intend to allow this appeal, we may point out that even if the appellant is in jail in connection with some criminal case(s) there is no prohibition in law to pass the detention order. Law on this aspect is well settled and stands crystalized by plethora of judgments of this Court. However, a reading of those very judgments also clarifies that there are certain aspects which have to be borne in mind by the detaining authority and satisfaction on those aspects is to be arrived at while passing the detention order. There are three such factors which were re-stated in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1991 (1) SCC 128 (pa. 13).

"13. From the catena of decisions referred to above it seems clear to us that even in