RANJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-6-12
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on June 12,2019

RANJU SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KH.NOBIN SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.N. Savitri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Shri S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for the Union ofIndia.
(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to release the husband of the petitioner. The prayer in the writ petition reads as under: "PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner begs to pray that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously please. (i) To admit this petition. (ii) To issue Rule Nisi; (iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for releasing the husband of the Petitioner forthwith. (iv) In the interim, to pass an order to safeguard the human rights/ liberty of the humble petitioner'shusband and direct the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to produce thePetitioner'shusband before the Hon'ble Court through the Respondent No. 3. And (v) To issue such other writ or direction which the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, proper and just for the ends of justice and of equity."?
(3.) Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the wife of Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh, Officer Commanding, 2 FID/3CISU (M Sector, Imphal) who is going to retire on 09-10-2020 and accordingly, her husband submitted an application dated 23-11-2017 to the authority concerned for last Leg posting at Mumbai being the last choice of posting from 3 Corps Int. and Svl. Unit, C/o 99 APO. His prayer was rejected and consequently, he was transferred as Addl. Officer, Stn. HQ, Belgaum vide order dated 07-03-2018. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner'shusband submitted a representation dated 28-03-2018 for reviewing the order dated 07-03-2018 and to post him in Mumbai as his last choice of posting. 3.1 As no positive action was taken by the authority concerned, the petitioner'shusband approached this court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 276 of 2018 wherein this court passed an order dated 05-04-2018 directing the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representation within a period of one month from the date of order. However, the representation dated 28-03-2018 was rejected vide order dated 04-05-2018 issued by the authority concerned on the ground that the petitioner retained a quarter in Mumbai for 10 years. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04-05-2018, the petitioner'shusband approached this court again by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 409 of 2018 which was disposed of by this court on 19-06-2018 directing the authorities to reconsider the posting of the petitioner'shusband to another field/NMS in the vicinity of Mumbai to meet his requirements and in the event of a fresh order being passed towards his posting, the petitioner'shusband should immediately vacate the accommodation occupied by his family at Mumbai. The aforesaid order dated 19-06-2018 was passed by this court based on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and considering the facts that the mother of the petitioner'shusband was undergoing treatment in a Hospital in Mumbai and that it was his last leg posting. On 27-06-2018 the petitioner'shusband through his counsel requested the authority concerned to comply with the said order of this court but to no effect. 3.2 In order to meet her husband, the petitioner left Mumbai along with her children and reached Imphal on 30-06-2018 at about 03:30 pm and thereafter, the petitioner spent her good time with her husband and children at the official quarter allotted to the petitioner'shusband at M Sector, Imphal. On 01-07-2018, at around 06:30 am while the petitioner was in the official quarter along with her husband and children, two officers namely, Lt. Col. Nanda, respondent No.5 and Major Rathod, respondent No.6, along with one JCO and 8 to 10 jawans in uniform armed with weapons, knocked the door of the quarter. When the petitioner and her husband went outside, they saw them along with some jawans. The respondent No.5 informed her husband that as per the direction of the respondent No.4, the petitioner'shusband was taken into custody and thereafter, without any warrant or giving any reason, the petitioner'shusband was taken away by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and their parties. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged an FIR at City Police Station, Imphal for taking appropriate action. Since the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 did not give any official information, the whereabouts of her husband was not known and her husband had been detained illegally by them. The factum of arrest and detention of the petitioner'shusband was published in the local daily newspapers as well as the National Newspapers. 3.3 The illegal detention of the petitioner'shusband by the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 was hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the life and personal liberty of the petitioner'shusband had been violated by them. The petitioner submitted that it was a case where the rights and personal liberty of the petitioner'shusband had been put in peril and had been irreparably violated by the respondents. The action of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 was also hit by Article 21(1) and (2) of the Constitution which called for intervention by this court. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.