BENAIYA GOLMEI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N .Kotiswar Singh, J 1. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Addl. Govt.Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the detenu -petitioner is assailing the impugned detention order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District, Manipur, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the detention order of the petitioner is vitiated for the reason that the grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner -detenu on the eighth day which is beyond the permissible limit of five days as provided under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 and no reasons have been recorded in writing for not furnishing the grounds of detention beyond five days though within ten days as provided under Section 8 of the Act. Secondly, it has been also submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail is merely ipse dixit and not based on any objective material as required under the law in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in Huidrom Konungjao Singh ­vs - State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2002.

(3.) HOWEVER , the grounds of detention dated 22.10.2012 was furnished to the petitioner -detenu only on 26.10.2012. Thus, the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner -detenu after eight days of the detention. Though the State respondents have not field any affidavit -in -opposition, the learned Govt. Advocate on the basis of the records relating to the detention has not denied the aforesaid fact of furnishing the grounds of detention on 26.10.2012. The learned Govt. Advocate also fairly submits that the records also do not indicate recording of reasons in writing for furnishing the grounds of detention beyond five days of the passing of the detention order.