Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 1209
Gauhati High Court
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Kh. Nobin Singh, JJ.
Sanjenbam Ramananda Singh - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (Cril) No. 3 of 2015
Decided On : 21-04-2015
For the Appellant :Ngongo, Advocate
For the Respondents:Y. Ashang, Govt. Advocate and S. Rupachandra, ASG
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 22(5) - National Security Act - section 3(2) - UA(P) Act - Section 20 - A. Act - Section 25(1-C) - Joined banned organisation - Wage war against the Government - recovery of 7.65 mm pistol made in U.S. and ammunitions from his possession - Seized - Challenged - Petitioner was born and brought up at under jurisdiction of West District - While petitioner was in school and before completion of academic session of Class - X, he gave up his further studies due to poverty - Petitioner joined banned organisation namely, United National Liberation Front (UNLF, in short) as a member in month through of Pukhao Leitanpokpi - After joining said banned organisation petitioner started working for UNLF organisation - Petitioner contacted Secretaries of different Clubs, Organisations, Meira Paibis and convinced general public particularly, youngsters to wage war against Government of India - On handed over one 7.65 mm pistol with three live rounds to him for carrying out said mobilisation works - On petitioner was arrested by police team of CDO, led by with recovery of 7.65 mm pistol made in U.S. and three live rounds and ammunitions from his possession and seized same by observing formalities -Held, Order of detention is most cherished and valuable right conferred upon a detenu under Article 22(5) of Constitution and also equally important is the right to have his representation considered by appropriate Government - In present case, detention order was issued by District Magistrate and after having received grounds of detention petitioner submitted his representation dated which was forwarded by State Government both to Chairman, Advisory Board and Central Government - e counsel appearing for State respondents fairly admitted that State Government had not considered the representation independently at all and Court are of view that failure or omission on the part of State Government to consider representation independently had rendered detention order invalid - Therefore this court has no option but to quash and set aside both detention order and approval order on this technical ground only - Court is of further view that it must express its dissatisfaction and anguish in respect thereof - Callous attitude being shown to by officers of State Government towards neglecting mandatory requirements is highly uncalled for and unfortunate - It is right time for State Government to direct its concerned officers to be wary and mindful while dealing with personal liberty of a citizen - Court allow the writ petition
1. Heard Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. The validity and the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 are being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was born and brought up at Awang Jiri under the jurisdiction of Nambol P.S., Imphal West District. While the petitioner was in the school and before the completion of the academic session of Class - X, he gave up his further studies due to poverty. The petitioner joined the banned organisation namely, United National Liberation Front (UNLF, in short) as a member in the month of February, 2009 through Shri Longjam Sanajaoba Meitei @ Boy @ Sana @ Batri @ Romi @ Sanahal of Pukhao Leitanpokpi. After joining the said banned organisation, the petitioner started working for UNLF organisation under the said Shri L. Sanajaoba who utilized the petitioner's service as a courier amongst the UNLF members in the valley districts of Manipur. As per the direction of Shri L. Sanajaoba, he along with other members of the UNLF carried out mobilisation works in Imphal West and Bishnupur Districts. The petitioner contacted Secretaries of different Clubs, Organisations, Meira Paibis and convinced the general public particularly, youngsters to wage war against the Government of India. On 21-10-2014 Shri L. Sanajaoba handed over one 7.65 mm pistol with three live rounds to him for carrying out the said mobilisation works. On 05-11-2014 at 11:00 a.m. the petitioner was arrested by the police team of CDO, Bishnupur led by Hav. Md. Islamuddin from Oinam Bazar with the recovery of 7.65 mm pistol made in U.S. and three live rounds and ammunitions from his possession and seized the same by observing formalities. The petitioner was handed over to O.C., Nambol P.S. with a written report and seized articles, on the strength of which the O.C., Nambol P.S. registered a regular case under F.I.R No. 137(11)2014 Nambol-PS u/s 20 UA(P) Act & 25(1-C)A. Act and the petitioner was remanded to police custody till 18-11-2014. While the petitioner was in police custody, the respondent No. 1 issued the detention order dated 18-11-2014 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act which was approved by the State Government on 29-11-2014.
4. The said Detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition on various grounds. The writ petition was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the detention order dated 18-11-2014 was approved by the State Government after considering the grounds of detention and other relevant documents furnished by the District Magistrate. It is further stated that the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner was forwarded both to the Central Government and the Chairman, Advisory Board on 09-12-2014. The Central Government has filed an affidavit explaining as to how the said representation dated 04-12-2014 was considered and rejected and the decision conveyed to the petitioner.
5. During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has given emphasis only on one ground and has vehemently submitted that the State Government has failed to consider the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner independently before placing it before the Advisory Board and that this act of the State Government amounted to violation of the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
6. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, we may refer to some of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
