Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Theyo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, representing the State respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his order of detention dated 16th January, 2014, followed by the order of approval dated 23rd January, 2014 of the Government of Nagaland, signed by the Chief Secretary. The order of detention was confirmed by order dated 7th March, 2014. The representation made by the petitioner against his detention was rejected by the Government of Nagaland vide order dated 26th February, 2014. The Central Government also rejected his representation. The Advisory Board also found sufficient ground for detention of the detenu.

2. The ground on which the impugned order of detention has been assailed is in respect of the derivation of subjective satisfaction. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the ground of detention, which are quoted below:-

2. The act committed by the subject carrying illegal arms and ammunition and threatening the public is a serious offence. Moreover carrying of illegal arms and ammunition and residing in civilian populated area thereby, endangering the safety and security of the public. The act is contrary to the wishes and aspirations of the general public in violation of the cease fire ground rules and therefore endanger the safety and security of the State.

4. The subject is presently under judicial custody, but there is a likelihood of him being released on bail and in the event of his released he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless an effective alternative measures is called for. On examination of the report forwarded by the sponsoring authority, the case of the subject is found fit to be booked under the National Security Act, 1980. Hence, in order to prevent him from further indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, the undersigned has ordered the detention of the subject under the said Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended since there is no material to show derivation of subjective satisfaction and in the writ petition a specific plea has been raised, it was incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to swear the affidavit filed instead of swearing the same by the Chief Secretary of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on some decisions, which are Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618; in Ringkahao Horam & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. reported in 1997 (2) GLT 419; in Jutika Chakraborty Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. reported in 2013 (5) GLT 785 and the unreported judgment dated 9th September, 2014 passed in WP (Crl.) No. 15(K)/2014.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the order of detention has been passed upon deriving of the subjective satisfaction. In this connection, learned State counsel has referred to paragraph 17 of the said affidavit, which is quoted below:-

"17. That with regard to the averments made in paragraph 9(J) of the writ petition, the answering deponent respectfully states that the averment made in this paragraph is denied by the answering respondent. The FIR and investigation report are valid documents containing the actual facts of the case. The sponsoring authority had proposed the detention of the detenue to the District Magistrate, Kohima after careful investigation of the case of the detenue. It has been ascertained that the detenue was arrested on 08.01.2014 for possession of illegal arms and ammunitions by search column of 19th Assam Rifles from P.R. Hill area near Supply Department Office, Kohima besides possession of demand notes bearing letter head of NSCN (K). Here, it is pertinent to point that the illegal 9 mm pistol along with 7 (seven) live r