MAISNAM BIREN SINGH @ ACHAMBA LUWANG Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No.5.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the detention order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur in Cril./NSA/No.66 of 2012. In the said detention order it has been stated that the petitioner namely, Shri Maisnam Biren Singh @ Achamba Luwang @ Oja Biren @ Chaamba has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur, on being satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and also being satisfied from the records that the detenu who was in police custody is likely to be released on bail since two other persons namely, Leitanthem Sanajaoba Meitei (29 years) S/O (L) L. Nitaichand Meitei of Senjam Chirang Mayai Leikai and Thockchom Sanjeet Singh (22 years) S/O Th. Tomba Singh of Senjam Chirang Maning Leikai, members of RPF/PLA who had been arrested on 08.09.2011 in connection with FIR No. 46(9)2011 Sekmai P.S. u/s 17/20 UA(P)A. Act and released on bail by the Court of JMIC/Imphal West on 13.09.2011, and since he is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, by invoking the provision under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, passed the aforesaid detention order dated 08.06.2012.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the grounds for detention already existed at the time of issuance of the detention order in the relevant file and the detaining authority after proper application of mind on these materials issued the detention order. The grounds of detention were formally furnished to the detenu on 11.06.2012 as 09.06.2012 and 10.06.2013 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday respectively. As such by furnishing the grounds of detention on the first working day, i.e. on 11.06.2012(Monday), no irregularity had been committed. Learned counsel for the State respondents has also submitted that since the order of detention and grounds of detention were submitted and forwarded to the State Government at the earliest possible time on 11.06.2012, there was no irregularity in terms of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, as the word "forthwith" mentioned in the Section has to be interpreted in a practical manner as to mean at the earliest period of time. Thirdly, it is argued by the State respondents that Section 10 of National Security Act, 1980 merely provides for the detaining authority to submit the representation, if any, by the detenu within three weeks. In the present case, the representation submitted by the detenu on 28.06.2012 was made available to the Advisory Board within a period of three weeks, and as such there was no violation of the provisions of Section 10 of National Security Act, 1980.