YUMNAM SHANTI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Moirangthem Gandhi Singh. By order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, in exercise of powers conferred under sub -section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, the detenu has been detained as a preventive measure. The said order of detention has been challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) FROM the ground of detention, it appears that the detenu was arrested on 9.7.2014 by a police team of CDO Imphal West and at the time of arrest from his house, a vehicle, one mobile hand set and one Sim Card were seized. The detenu, thereafter, was handed over to the Officer in -Charge of Imphal Police Station with a written report and on the strength of the report of the Officer in -charge, Imphal Police Station, F.I.R. case No. 250(7)2014 IPS was registered for commission of offence u/s. 16/17/20 UA (P) Act and 3 Expl. Subs. Act. He was remanded to Jail custody till 22.7.2014 and thereafter when the detenu was in judicial custody, the order of detention was passed.

(3.) MR . Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only one issue challenging the order of detention. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order of detention was passed and grounds of detention were served on the detenu, a representation was filed by the detenu before the Advisory Board as well as to the Central Govt. Even though no representation was filed specifically before the State Govt. the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was processed by the State Govt. and sent to the Advisory Board. Therefore, though the State Govt. was aware of such a representation addressed to the Advisory Board, it did not independently consider the representation and consequently no order has been passed by the State Govt. on the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Advisory Board. Mr. Vashum, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents submitted that admittedly the petitioner had not given any representation to the State Govt. Therefore, question of consideration of such representation did not arise and therefore the detenu cannot take advantage of non consideration of the representation.