AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order of detention dated 16.6.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in exercise of the power conferred under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act,1980 is under challenge.
As per the grounds of detention, the detenu FM Sharif, joined an armed insurgent organization namely, Kanglei Yawol Kangba Lup (KYKL) as a member in the month of February, 2016. The objective of the said organization is to secede the State of Manipur from Union of India and to create a sovereign and independent State of Manipur. For the said purpose organization had been procuring arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and had been recruiting youngsters from various communities. In order to achieve objectives, the members of the organization committed series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion and kidnapping for ransom etc. in different parts of the State of Manipur. [2.1] Further ground is that the detenu, after joining the organization, started working together with other members of the organization under the command of self styled Capt. Sorokhaibam Gune Singh on whose instance the detenu and his associates demanded huge money from private firms, schools and individuals through mobile. In the last week of March, 2016 detenu and his associates extorted of a sum of Rs.30,000/- from Brilliant School, Samurou and Nando Brick Field and deposited it with the said Capt. S. Gune Singh, who directed the detenu and others to hurl a hand grenade at the houses of the persons who ignored to pay extortion amount. Accordingly, on 29.9.2016 the detenu along with others got a powerful bomb exploded at Utlou Mayai Leikai for which a case was registered as FIR No.56(3)16 Nambol PS u/s 307/506/34 IPC & 20 UA(P)Act. Similar kind of acts were committed by the detenu and his associates and then on 1.5.2016 one Yumnam Sunil Singh , Babusana and others were arrested by a police team of CDO Imphal West on whose disclosure the detenu was arrested on the same day from his house from where a motor cycle from which crime was committed, was recovered. Seized articles were handed over to OC Wangoi PS with a written report, on the strength of which FIR No.37(5)16 Wangoi PS was registered u/s 17/20 UA(P) Act, 25(1-C) A Act & 5 Expl.Subs.Act. In the course of investigation, he was also arrested in connection with the aforesaid Nambol P.S. FIR case No.56(3)2016.
[2.2] On the aforesaid grounds, order of detention was passed on 16.6.2016 which was approved on 27.6.2016.
Both the orders of detention and approval are under challenge.
Mr. Ph.Sanajaoba Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of detention has been challenged on several grounds but he would confine only on one ground which relates to delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government authority. In this regard, it was submitted that on 27.6.2016 representation was submitted to the State Govt as well as Central Govt. authority. Said representation submitted before the State Govt. was rejected on 11.7.2016. On the same day, State Government forwarded it to the Central Government which was received on 21.7.2016. Meanwhile parawise comments was forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government on 16.7.2016 which was received on 20.7.2016 and thereafter on 20.9.2016 Central Govt. passed the order rejecting the representation after two months of the receipt of the representation for which authority has not come forward with any reasonable and plausible ground for delay and thereby detention order becomes vulnerable. Under the circumstances, order of detention and its approval is fit to be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing for the Central Govt., by referring to the statements made in the affidavit in-opposition relating to movement of file, tried to explain the delay in the following manner:
20.7.2016- Representation as well as para wise comments received by the Ministry.
21.7.2016- File forwarded to the Under Secretary(NSA)
22.7.2016- Forwarded to the Deputy Legal Advisor by the Under Secretary(NSA)
22.7.2016- Forwarded to the Joint Secretary (Internal Security-II) by the Deputy Legal Advisor with his comments.
23 & 24 July- 2016 Saturday and Sunday (Holiday).
25.7.2016- Forwarded to the Union Home Secretary by the Joint Secretary (Internal Security-II)
01.8.2016- The file reached the Section since the Union Home Secretary directed to seek a fresh report from the State and IB.
02.8.2016- The Section sought clarification from the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Manipur and the District Magistrate, Imphal West.
16.8.2016- Reminder was sent to the Addl. Chief
22.8.2016- Secretary Home Department, Government of Manipur and the District Magistrate, Imphal West
22.8.2016- Sought details of the incident from the Director, Intelligence Bureau forwarded its report to the Union Government.
08.9.2016- Intelligence Bureau forwarded its report to the Union Government.
14.9.2016- File reached the office of the Under Secretary(NSA).
15.9.2016- The Under Secretary (NSA) with his comments forwarded the file to the Deputy Legal Advisor
15.9.2016- The Deputy Legal Advisor forwarded the file to the Joint Secretary (Internal Security-II).
17.9.2016- The Union Home Secretary forwarded the file to the Joint Secretary (North East).
23.9.2016- The Joint Secretary (North East) with his comments forwarded the file to the Union Home Secretary.
29.9.2016- The Union Home Secretary rejected the representation of the Detenu (Petitioner) and sent back the file to the Joint Secretary(Internal Security-II).
30.9.2016- The file reached the section.
1 & 2 Oct 2016 -Saturday and Sunday(Holiday)
03.10.2016 -Wireless message sent.
Thus, it was submitted that whatsoever delay was caused it was on account of movement of the file and thereby there was no deliberate latches on the part of the authority in causing delay in disposing of the representation and hence order of detention never warrants to be interfered with.
If one goes through the dates of the events as mentioned above one would find that there has been absolutely no explanation of the period falling between two dates such such as 20.5.2016 and 1.8.2016 and likewise in between 20.2.2010 to 8.9.2016 and then 8.9.2016 to 14.9.2016 and also from 17.9.2016 to 23.1.2016 and thereby delay occurred in disposing of the representation cannot be said to be reasonable one. In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Mohammad Akhlaq vs. District Magistrate, Meerut wherein it has been observed as follows:
"3. .........There can be no doubt whatever that there was unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Central Government with the result that the said representation was not considered by the Central Government till 16.10.1987 i.e. for a period of more than two months. Section 14(1) of the Act confers upon the Central Government the power to revoke an order of detention even if it is made by the State Government or its officer. That power, in order to be real and effective, must imply a right in a detenu to make a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. Thus, the failure of the State Government to comply with the request of the detenu for the onward transmission of the representation to the Central Government has deprived the detenu of his valuable right to have his detention revoked by that Government."
Thus, we do find that the Central Government has not given any reasonable explanation with respect to delay in disposing of the representation and thereby order of detention becomes vulnerable and hence it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, detenu FM Sharif s/o FM Farid of Haoribi Makha Leikai PS Lilong be directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case. Thus, this application stands allowed.