The constitution of the Advisory Board and the sufficiency of cause for detention under the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Uma Nath Singh, J.

1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29-05-2014, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(Crl.) No. 15/2013, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not find any scope for interference with the detention order as well as grounds of detention.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to filing of the writ appeal are that the appellant being father of detenue, Shri. Arthar Ch. Marak, instituted a writ petition against the arrest and detention of his son. It appears that the detenue was arrested by the Police on 08-01-2013 in connection with two criminal cases registered as (i) Mendipathar P.S. Case No. 42(5) of 2013 under Section 120(B)/ 121/ 121(A) IPC read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B) Arms Act and (ii) Mendipathar P.S. Case No. 51(6) 2013 under Section 25(1-A)(1-B) Arms Act. Upon arrest, the detenue was remanded to Police custody and then given to Judicial custody. While being in custody, the detenue was served with impugned detention order dated 9th September, 2013, detaining him under Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (for short the MPDA, 1995). The order of detention was passed by District Magistrate, North Garo Hills District, Resubelpara, and thereafter, the detenue was lodged in District Jail, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar.

3. As per averments, made, it is submitted that the detenue does not belong to militant organization called 'Garo National Liberation Army' (for short GNLA) and was not involved in the police cases as alleged. Thus, he was not a party to GNLA which is alleged to have created reign of terror by causing abductions, targeting innocent civilians, engaging in rampant extortion, and wanton killing of police personnel and civilians by premeditated attacks and ambushes. It was also stated that the impugned detention order, was mechanically passed on the basis of First Information Report without applying mind to reach a reasonable subjective satisfaction. Moreover, statements of witnesses, list of seized materials, police report and other supporting documents were not supplied to the detenue. Thus, this led to violation of his fundamental rights. It was also alleged in the writ petition that the detaining authority did not inform the detenue of his right to make representation, and thus, he suffered a serious prejudice to his fundamental rights. Learned Single Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for parties, has passed the impugned order as the aforesaid while holding that the detenue was informed about his right to make representation before the District Magistrate as well as Principal Secretary, (Political Department), Govt. of Meghalaya. Now being aggrieved by the judgment in writ petition, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that this Court while hearing other detention matters has already observed that after creation of this High Court, the Advisory Board was not re-constituted upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice, in terms of the requirements of Section 10 of the MPDA, 1995, and the learned AG, was thus granted time to seek instruction in that regard. It is stated that the learned AG has informed the Government to constitute the Advisory Board afresh. For ready reference, the provisions as contained in Section 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of MPD Act relating to constitution of the Advisory Board, reference of cases to the Board, procedure being adopted and followed by the Board, action to be taken upon the report of the Board, and the maximum period of detention prescribed there under are reproduced herein below.

"10. Constitution of Advisory Board-(1) The State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Board for the purposes of this Act.

(2) An Advisory Board shall consist of three persons who are or have been or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of a High Court and such persons s