K. Lahiri, A.C.J. -
(1.)BY these habeas corpus petitions, the detenus question the validity of the orders of detention dated 10.2.84 passed by the District Magistrate, Ukhrul, Manipur under the National Security Act, 1980 for short "the Act". As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, we propose to dispose them of by common order.
(2.)THE Petitioners were detained on 10.2.1984, and the grounds of detention were furnished to them on 13.2.84 and the orders of detention were approved by the Government of Manipur on 18.2.84. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged three points in Civil Rule (HC) Nos. 40/84, 41/84 and 42/84. They are : (1) the orders of detention were never served on the detenus : (2) the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ukhrul was not furnished to any of the detenus, which amounted to non -communication of the grounds of detention; and (3) the Central Government did not consider the consider the report submitted to it under Section 3(5) read with Section 14(1) of the Act. In so far as Civil Rule (HC) No. 43/84 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged only the last two points.
Let us now turn to the first contention of the learned Counsel. It has been urged that the orders of detention were never served, upon the detenus at any time. The contention fails, as in their affidavits, the State Government has categorically stated that the detention orders were duly executed on the date on which those were made. We have perused the service reports produced before us and find, that the detenus acknowledged the receipt of the detention orders. The detaining authorities have sworn affidavits, produced materials including the service reports to show that the orders of detention were served on 10.2.84 on the Petitioners in Civil Rule (HC) Nos. 40/84, 41/84 and 42/84, which satisfy our mind that the orders, of detention were duly served on the detenus on 10.2.84. In view of these facts, the first contention of learned Counsel fails.
(3.)IN support of the second contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the orders of detention were rendered in a casual and mechanical manner and there was non -application of the mind of the detaining authority. In the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Ukhrul to the Government of Manipur, there was a statement that on perusal of the report dated 10.2.84 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Ukhrul and other materials, the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenus could be detained under "the Act". However, according to the Petitioners, although the grounds of detention were furnished to them, along with other statements, they were not furnished with the report of the Superintendent of Police which, submits the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is the basic document on which the orders of detention were made. There is no wrangle, nor can there be any, that the copies of documents, statements and materials referred or relied upon in the grounds of detention, meaning there by those papers, documents and materials which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction about the necessity of the detention, must be communicated to the detenu. The contention finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Yumnam Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. : AIR 1983 SC. 300; Ganga Ramchand Bharvani v. Government of Maharastra : AIR 1980 SC. 1744; Mehrunissa v. State of Maharastra : AIR 1981 SC. 1861 and Mulchandani v. Govt. of Maharastra : AIR 1982 SC 1221. All documents which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction about the necessity of the detention must be communicated to the detenu. In the instant case, however the documents are not "in built" in the grounds of detention. There is no reference of the report of the Superintendent of Police in any of the grounds furnished to the Petitioners.