Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Manipur) 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
Kapkhanlun Zou @ Kaplun - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, The Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, The Director General of Poli - Resopndent
WP(C) No. 158 of 2008
Decided On : 30-01-2014

Advocates:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. R.K. Umakanta, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Ms. Sundari, GA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in releasing the petitioner from detention, despite the court's order, constituted a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The court restricted the compensation to a sum of Rs. 10,000, considering the lack of gross abuse of authority, arbitrariness, or mala fide in the case.

Headnote:
Compensation - Delay in Release Order - National Security Act, 1980 - [Compensation] - [Delay in Release Order] - [National Security Act, 1980]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compensation for being illegally and wrongfully confined for 8 days after being set free by the High Court on quashing of his detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The delay in implementing the court's order was alleged to violate the petitioner's fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a delay in releasing the petitioner from detention, and the authorities did not demonstrate the promptitude and urgency the matter deserved. The court held that the delay could have been avoided if the officials had shown promptness and urgency in dealing with the release order passed by the High Court. The court, however, restricted the compensation to a sum of Rs. 10,000, considering the lack of gross abuse of authority, arbitrariness, or mala fide in the case.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in implementing the court's order, the violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to life and personal liberty, and the entitlement to compensatory cost under the public law remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in releasing the petitioner from detention was not justified, and the officials did not demonstrate the promptness and urgency the matter deserved. The court restricted the compensation to a sum of Rs. 10,000, considering the lack of gross abuse of authority, arbitrariness, or mala fide in the case.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by imposing a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and allowed the petitioner to seek adequate and proper compensation under the ordinary civil remedy for the loss suffered due to the delay in release from detention, within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sundari, learned GA for the respondents. The present petition has been filed seeking payment of Rs. 1 lakh with interest as compensation from the respondents claiming that the petitioner had been illegally and wrongfully confined and continued in detention in jail/custody for 8 (eight) days after being set free by the High Court on quashing of his detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, may be stated as follows.

The petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2007 by the BSF on the charge of possession of an Air Pistol and handed over to the Police in connection with which the FIR Case No. 48(3) 2007 CCPur P.S under Section 400 IPC and 25(1-C) Arms Act was registered against him. Accordingly, he was remanded to judicial custody by the C.J.M., Churachandpur on 22.03.2007 till 30.03.2007.

While the petitioner was in custody in connection the FIR case, the District Magistrate, Churachandpur, issued the order for detaining him under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) vide order dated 28.03.2007.

The petitioner filed W.P. (Cril) No. 67 of 2007 challenging the aforesaid detention order passed under the NSA before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 30.01.2008 by setting aside the order of detention and directed as follows:

The impugned detention order dated 28th March, 2007, approval order dated 9th April, 2007 and confirmation order dated 16th May, 2007 are hereby set aside. The petitioner/detenu, namely Kapkhanlun Zou @ Kaplun, is to be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case(s).

A copy of the said order along with the release order dated 30.01.2008 was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, on 30.01.2008, which was received on the same day. Thereafter, it was forwarded to the office of the Principal Secretary (Home), which was also received on 31.01.2008. It was then endorsed to the Joint Secretary (Home) for further necessary action.

3. According to the petitioner, even though the office of the Chief Secretary, took prompt action for release of the petitioner, the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, sent a communication/letter addressed to the DGP, Manipur, after five days i.e. 5.2.2008 for releasing of the petitioner, with a copy to the DGP of Prisons, Manipur for necessary action.

The said communication dated 5.2.2008 from the Joint Secretary (Home) was received by the Director General of Prisons on 8.2.2008 after three days, thus causing a delay of 8 (eight) days altogether.

The aforesaid delay of 8 (eight) days in communicating the order of this Court for releasing the petitioner, according to the petitioner, amounts deprivation of his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, after the detention under the NSA was declared to be illegal by the Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming for payment of compensation on the ground that there has been undue delay in implementing the order of the Court directing release of the petitioner which has resulted in violation of his fundamental right.

4. The State respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition. In the affidavit in opposition it has been stated that the release order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP (Cril) No. 67 of 2007 was routed through the Section Officer (Home) and it was placed on the desk of the dealing assistant on 2.2.2008. The next day i.e. 3.2.2008 being Sunday, the matter could not be taken up. However, on the next day, i.e. 4.2.2008 as there were many other urgent and time bound daks such as approval of the detention order passed by the District Magistrates, preparation of reports of cases to the Advisory Board under NSA, and also to the Central Governm