KHOIROM Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
BIPINCHANDR
BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2024.10.25
A SINGH AT IMPHAL
13:30:08 +05'30'
W.P.(Crl) No. 3 of 2024
Shri Thokchom Romeschandra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao,
aged about 33 years, S/o (L) Th. Nilachandra Singh @
Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang P.S.
Bishnupur, Manipur.
Petitioner
…
- Versus -
1. The District Magistrate, Imphal East, Manipur,
Porompat 795005.
–
2. The State of Manipur represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, South Block, Imphal,
Manipur 795001.
–
3. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail,
Sajiwa.
4. The Union of India represented by (Secretary, Home
Affairs) Department of Internal Security North Block,
New Delhi 110001.
–
…Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HO
N’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioner : Mr. Ch. Ngongo, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Ms. S. Gangarani, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Th. Vashum, Govt. Advocate
Mr. BR Sharma, CGSC
Date of hearing : 22.10.2024
Date of judgment &order : 25.10.2024
P a g e 1 | 18
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(Siddharth Mridul, CJ)
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
S. Gangarani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Th.
Vashum, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3
and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent
No. 4.
[2] The present petition has been instituted on behalf of Shri
Thokchom Romeschadra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao with the following
prayer:
“To issue rule nisi directing the respondents to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus should not be issued
and set aside the impugned order in Annexure A/1 and A/4 to the
–
petition and set the petitioner at liberty.”
[3] The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2024 in connection with
FIR No. 02(01)2024 HNG-PS U/S 17/20 UA(P) Act and detained under the
NSA by the District Magistrate, Imphal East (respondent No. 1 herein) vide
order No. Cril/NSA No. 1 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 and lodged in the
Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on the allegation that he is an active member of
the banned unlawful organization, KCP (Noyon) [KCP(N)] and a notoriously
clever, hardened criminal/habitual offender who had carried out various
prejudicial activities. The detention order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure
–
A/1), is extracted herein below:
P a g e 2 | 18
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
“
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT
ORDERS
Porompat, the 30 January, 2024
No.CH/NSA/No.1 of 2024 Whereas, Superintendent of Police, Imphal East
District vide letter No. C-5/12/SP 1E/2024/1447 dated, 29 January, 2024
has forwarded history sheet with relevant documents in respect of one
Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh @ Ayangba@ Nanao (33 yrs/ male) S/o
(L) Th. Nilachandra Singh @ Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai,
Moirang PS/ Bishnupur, Manipur, arrested in connection with FIR No.
02(01) 2024 HNG PS U/S 17/20 UA(P) Act, for issue of detention order in
respect of the above accused under National Security Act, 1980 as he is
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and is not
possible to prevent his activities by application of ordinary laws;
Whereas, an application on behalf of the accused person
Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh, aged 33 years, S/o (L) Th. Nilachandra
Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang P.S., Bishnupur District, Manipur
under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying
for release on ball has been filed on 18 January, 2024 in the Court of the
Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East at Cheirap Court Complex, Imphal,
Manipur;
Whereas, SP, Imphal East has also stated in his detailed report that
Shri Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh Ayangba @Nanao (33 yrs/ male) S/O
(1) Th. Nilachandra Singh @ Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai,
Moirang PS/ BPR, Manipur, being a notoriously clever as well as habitual
offender and hardened criminal, there is high apprehension of releasing
him on bait as the ball hearing has been fixed today, i.e., 30-01-2024;
Whereas, 1, the undersigned in the capacity of District Magistrate,
Imphal East District, Manipur, am satisfied, upon examination of the
detailed police report and relevant documents submitted by the SP, that his
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section
3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and there is likelihood of his release
on ball as he has applied for the same on 16 January, 2024;
Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Shri Thokchom
Romeshchandra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao (33 yrs/male) S/O (1) Th.
Nilachandra Singh @Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang
PS/ BPR Manipur, with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 3(2) of the
National Security Act, 1980’
Now, therefore, I, the undersigned, District Magistrate, Imphal East
District Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Sub
Section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 make this order
directing that the above-mentioned person who is now in police custody be
detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 until further
orders.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 30 day of
January, 2024.
Sd/-
(Khumantham Diana Devi)
District Magistrate, Imphal East”
P a g e 3 | 18
[4] The respondent No. 1, on 01.02.2024, issued grounds of
detention and furnished a copy thereof to the petitioner vide letter No.
Cril/NSA/No. 1 of 2024.
[5] Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The present petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging
the veracity and correctness of the order of detention dated 30/01/2024 and
subsequent order of approval and confirmation order issued by Joint
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. The allegations in short are that
the petitioner is a member of Kangleipak Communist Party (Noyon Group)
and is involved in activities prejudicial to the security of state and
maintenance of public order. As per the allegations in the grounds of
detention; reliable information was received by the Imphal East Police
Station on 05/01/2024 at about 4:00 p.m. that some active members of the
outfit KCP (Noyon Group) were present at the Sangakpham Bazar, Imphal
East District, Manipur. A team of Imphal East District Police led by Inspector
Kh. Henery, Officer-in-charge of Commando, Imphal East Unit and Inspector
Kh. Pathou Meitei, OC/HNG-PS/Imphal East and a column of 4 AR under the
overall supervision of Shri Dr. S. Ibomcha Singh, MPS Superintendent of
Police, Imphal East rushed to the said area and conducted a search
operation. In that operation the combined team detained one suspect for
verification. On verification, the detenu identified himself as one Imtiyas
Khan, an active member of outfit KCP (Noyon Group). The said Imtiyas
further disclosed that he was working under one Thokchom Romeschandra
P a g e 4 | 18
Singh and at his instance he had extorted money from Pharmacy Shops at
Sangakpham Bazar and he also disclosed that his associate Th.
Romeschandra and one Md. Salim are waiting for him at Keirang, Imphal
East. Immediately the combined team rushed to Keirang and arrested
Thokchom Romeschandra @ Ayangba, aged about 33 years and one Md.
Salim, aged about 30 years. The O/E was submitted to the officer-in-charge
HNG-PS on the same day at about 9:20 p.m. After that the accused was
produced before the Special Judge (NIA) and remanded to Judicial Custody.
[6] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the detaining authority did not formulate the grounds of
detention before passing the detention order; asserting that the grounds of
detention are a pre-condition, as observed by a catena of decisions of
, and as such, the detention order is an unfounded one.
Hon’ble Apex Court
[7] Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that after going through the grounds of detention and the
detention order, it is crystal clear that there is no material before the
detaining authority for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is likely
to be released on bail. have struck down
The decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
the detention orders and confirmation orders on the ground of the vitiation
of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The asseveration of
the detaining authority in the detention order that bail is granted by Criminal
Courts in similar cases are a totally self-serving and false statement.
Moreover, the said assertion not supported by any material facts and it is
P a g e 5 | 18
only ipse-dixit of the detaining authority and therefore, the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside.
[8] The petitioner, through his former counsel, on 08.02.2024,
submitted an application to the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa
requesting him to supply copies of the representation to the respondent No.
1, 2 & 4 for revocation of the detention order.
On the same day, an order was issued by the Home
Department, Government of Manipur approving the impugned detention
order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East, is approved (Annexure
A/4), which reads as follow:
–
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
“
SECRETARIAT: HOME DEPARTMENT
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR: MANIPUR
Imphal, the 8th February, 2024
No.H-14/1/2024-HD-HD: Whereas the District Magistrate, Imphal
East District. Manipur under Section 3(3) of the National Security
Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), vide No.
Cril/NSA/No.1 of 2024/138 dated 30.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 issued
detention order detaining Thokchom Romeshchandra Singh
Ayangba @ Nanao (33 yrs/ Male), s/o Th. Nilachandra Singh @
Lilachandra Singh of Phubala Awang Leikai, Moirang PS/ Bishnupur,
Manipur (hereinafter referred to as the said person);
2 And whereas, the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur
has submitted a report on the detention of the said person under
section 3(2) to the Government vide her letter No. Cril/NSA/No.1 of
2024/142 dated 01.02.2024. Further the District Magistrate, Imphal
East District, Manipur has furnished grounds for detention of the said
person under Section 3(2) of the said Act to the Government vide
her letter No. Cril/NSA/No. 1 of 2024/142 dated 01.02.2024;
3 And whereas, after having carefully considered grounds for
detention furnished by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District,
Manipur and being satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of Public Order is of the opinion that the grounds are
P a g e 6 | 18
sufficient for the detention of the said person under Section 3(2) of
the said Act and that the order of detention aforesaid made by the
District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur under Section 3(3)
of the said Act is hereby approved by the Competent Authority;
4 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
3(4) of the said Act, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to approve
the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East
District, Manipur under No. Cri/NSA/No. 1 of 2024/136 dated
30.01.2024 and 31.01.2024.
By orders & in the name of Governor,
Sd/-
(Ranjan Yumnam) Joint Secretary (Home).
Government of Manipur
”
[9] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
further more submits that he filed a Bail Application before the Special Judge
(NIA), Imphal East, being Cril. Misc. (B) No. 6 of 2024 [Ref. : 02(01)2024
HNG-P.S. U/S 17/20 UA(P) Act. The said application was disposed of as
uncontested not pressed.
–
The said representation dated 08.02.2024 for revocation of the
detention order was rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide letter No.
Cril/NSA/No. 1 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024. However, there was a delay while
rejecting the representation in relation to the detention order. Operative
portion of the said letter is extracted herein below:
“In inviting a reference to your representation dated 08.02.2024
addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur forwarded
by Inspector General of Police (Prisons), Manipur vide his letter No.
9/4/2022-IG(J)/3385 dated 08.02.2024 against the detention under
NSA regarding the above subject, and to inform you that your
representation has been considered carefully by the State
Government and it has come to the conclusion that your request for
revocation of the detention order cannot be acceded to as the
representation is found to be devoid of merit.”
P a g e 7 | 18
The respondent No. 2 also rejected the said representation
vide letter No. Cril/NSA/No. 1 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024. However, there is
also a delay in rejecting the representation based on the detention order.
Operative portion of the said letter is extracted herein below:
12. Hence, it is highly regretted, to inform you that the request
“
for revocation of the detention orders under reference No.
Cril/NSA/No. 1 of 2024 dated 30th January, 2024 and allegation made
by you has not been acceded to by this Office, as the submissions
made therein are not maintainable.
”
[10] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the respondent No. 4 did not consider the representation for
revocation of the detention order on the report submitted by the respondent
No. 2. The respondent No. 1 also did not consider the representation till
date. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the
following grounds:
(i) The detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside as
there was misapplication of law by the detaining authority
while passing the detention order as such, the orders
annexed in Annexures A/1 and A/4 are liable to be set
–
aside.
(ii) The detaining authority did not formulate the grounds of
detention before passing the detention order and as such,
the impugned orders is liable to be set aside.
P a g e 8 | 18
(iii) There is no material before coming to the conclusion that
the petitioner is likely to be released on bail and as such,
the detention order is liable is to be set aside.
(iv) There was no material before the detaining authority for
coming to the conclusion that the petition is likely to
indulge in the prejudicial activity if release from detention
and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside.
(v) There is no bail order for graining bail with respect to FIR
No. 146(9)2008 MRG-PS and FIR No. 28(6)2020 BPR-PS
enclosed to the grounds of detention and as such, the
satisfaction of the detaining authority for likely to be
released on bail is nothing but ipse-dixit and as such, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(vi) The documents annexed to the ground of detention are
not readable, so could not provide an effective
representation and as such, the impugned order is liable
to set aside.
(vii) The respondent No. 1 is not aware of the likelihood of
continuation of prejudicial activity after releasing on bail
and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside.
P a g e 9 | 18
(viii) Nothing is mentioned in the detention order that the
detenue would continue his prejudicial activity after
releasing on bail and as such, the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
(ix) The respondent No. 1 did not forward the approved
report to the respondent No. 1 as required by Section 3(5)
of NSA and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.
(x) The respondent No. 1 did not provide the specific
designation and address of the Central Government and
the petitioner could not make the Central Government as
a respondent and as such, the impugned orders are liable
to be set aside.
(xi) The respondent No. 4 did not dispose of the
representation dated 08.02.2024 till date and as such, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
[11] During the course of hearing, Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner advanced arguments only on
the solitary ground that there is an unexplained delay in disposal of the
representation, on the part of the
petitioner’s constitutionally enabled
Central Government.
In this behalf, the petitioner filed a representation addressed
to the respondent No. 4, i.e. Union of India on 03.08.2024, through
P a g e 10 | 18
respondent No. 3, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail,
Sajiwa with a forwarding letter requesting the respondent No. 3 to obtain
signature from the detenu and forward the same to the respondent No. 4
with 6 (six) copies of the representation. As per the tracking report of Speed
Post, it is indicated that the same was received on 09.08.2024.
[12] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the respondent No. 4 filed affidavit on 08.10.2024 stating that
the said representation was received by the Central Government only on
09.09.2024 at 12:15 p.m. through e-mail submitted by the Home
Department, Government of Manipur and that thereafter, his representation
was considered and rejected on the 12.09.2024.
The respondent No. 3 also filed affidavit to the additional
affidavit filed by the petitioner on 13.09.2024 wherein they stated that they
have received the said representation on 05.08.2024 and the same was
forwarded to the concerned authority after obtaining the signature of the
detenu on the same day.
It is, thus, factually evident that there is a delay of 1 (one)
month in consideration of the said representation by the Central
Government. In the present case, there is absolutely no explanation
forthcoming, particularly from the State respondents for the axiomatic delay
in forwarding the representation dated 03.08.2024. There is a total
unexplained delay of 1 (one) month i.e. from 09.08.2024 to 09.09.2024 by
P a g e 11 | 18
the State respondents. The delay in transmitting the representation affects
adversely the further detention of the detenu. In this regard, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the decision of the
rendered in Aslam Ahmed Zahiri Ahmed Shaid V. Union
Hon’ble Apex Court
of India & Ors. [AIR 1989 SC 1403]. Wherein, it was held as follows:
11. Reverting to the instant case, we hold that the above
“
observation in Vijay Kumar’s case will squarely be applicable to the
facts herein. Indisputedly the Superintendent of Central Prison of
Bombay to whom the representation was handed over by the detenu
on 16-6-88 for mere on-ward transmission to, the Central
Government has callously ignored and kept it in cold storage
unattended form a period of 7 days, as a result of that, the
representation reached the Government 11 days after it was handed
over to the Jail Superintendent. Why the representation was retained
by the jail Superintendent has not at all been explained in spite of
the fact that this Court has permitted the respondent to explain the
delay in this appeal, if not before the High Court.
12. In our view, the supine indifference, slackness and callous
attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent who had unreasonably
delayed in transmitting the representation as an intermediary, had
ultimately caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant’s
representation by the Government which received the representation
11 days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the
detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in
rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and
constitutionally impermissible.”
The operative portion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order
passed in Vijay Kumar (supra) is extracted herein below; for the
’s case
sake of completeness:-
10. A contention similar to one pressed before us was examined
by this Court in Vijay Kumar’s case (AIR 1982 SC 1023) (supra)
wherein the facts were that the representation
of the detenu therein dated 29-7-81 was forwarded to Government
by ’the Superintendent of Jail on the same day by post followed by
a wireless message, but according, to the Government, the
representation was not received by them. Thereafter, a duplicate
copy was sent by the Jail Superintendent on being requested and
P a g e 12 | 18
the same was, received by the Government on 12-8-81. Considering
the time lag of 14 days in the given circumstances of that case, this
Court though over- looked the same and allowed the Writ Petition
on the subsequent time lag, made the following observation (at P.
1028 of AIR):
"The Jail authority is merely a communicating channel
because the representation has to reach the Government
which enjoys the power of revoking the detention order. The
intermediary authorities who are communicating authorities
have also to move with an amount of promptitude so that
the statutory guarantee of affording earlier opportunity of
making the representation and the same reaching the
Government is translated into action. The corresponding
obligation of the State to consider the representation cannot
be whittled down by merely saying that much time was lost
in the transit. If the Government enacts a law like the
present Act empowering certain authorities to make the
detention order and also simultaneously makes a statutory
provision of affording the earliest opportunity to the detenu
to make his representation against his detention to the.
Government and not the detaining authority, of necessity
the State Government must gear up its own machinery to
see that in these cases the representation reaches the
Government as quickly as possible and it is considered by
the authorities with equal promptitude. Any slackness in this
behalf not properly explained would be denial of the
protection conferred by the statute and would result in
invalidation of the order."
[13] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also
Rajamal V. State
relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(1999) I SCC 417] (para No. 8 & 9) wherein, it was
held that if delay was caused on account of indifference of lapses in
considering the representations, such delay will adversely effect further
detention of detenu. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to
explain the delay in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say
that the delay was very short. Even the longer day can well be explained, so
P a g e 13 | 18
the test is not duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the
authority concerned.
[14] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing on behalf of the
respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 submits that affidavit-in-opposition in respect of
the said respondents have been filed.
It has been stated that the petitioner is a member of banned
unlawful organization namely, Kangleipak Communist Party (Noyon)
[KCP(N)] and carried out various prejudicial activities to the security of the
State and maintenance of public order and he was involved in many FIR
cases i.e. (i) FIR No. 146(9) 2008 MRG-PS U/S 18 UA(P) Act of Moirang
Police Station, Bishnupur District, (ii) FIR No. 28(6) 2020 BPR-PS U/S UA (P)
Act of Bishnupur Police Station, Bishnupur District and (iii) FIR No.
02(01)2024 HNG-PS U/S 17-20 UA(P) Act of Heingang Police Station, Imphal
East District.
In regard to the charge sheet, the learned GA submits that
there no mandate as to charge sheet should be submitted before issuance
of the impugned detention order and the detention order was purely on the
basis of his past and present unlawful prejudicial activities. The detention
order has been issued after due investigation and fact findings that the
petitioner has been a repeated offender as per past police records and there
is likelihood of his release on bail again, since he has applied for, and in view
of his prejudicial activities in the immediate past, there is likelihood of
continuation of such prejudicial acts in future. Therefore, it is evident from
P a g e 14 | 18
the facts mentioned above that normal criminal laws are not sufficient to
prevent the petitioner from the commission of prejudicial activities and have
found to be a fit case for preventive detention under NSA, 1980; accordingly
the detention order is passed under the relevant provision of Section 3(2) of
NSA, 1980.
[15] The learned GA submits that the petitioner himself admitted
that he had already been released on bail in two previous occasions i.e. in
2008 and 2020 and the same has been reflected in the interrogation
statement recorded in connection with FIR No. 02(1)2024 NHG-PS U/S 17/20
UA(P) Act.
After passing the impugned detention order dated 30.01.2024,
the same has been approved by the State on 08.02.2024. On the same day,
the petitioner submitted his representation and the same has been
considered and rejected on 13.02.2024 which has also been sent to the
petitioner.
As regards the representation dated 03.08.2024, they have
received the same on 05.08.2024 and forwarded the same to the concerned
authority after obtaining signature of the detenu on the same day.
[16] Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Union
of India submits that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed stating that the
representation dated 08.02.2024 of the detenu was duly considered and not
acceded to by the Central Government. Accordingly, the detenu along with
P a g e 15 | 18
the authorities concerned were informed vide wireless message No.
II/15023/01/2024-NSA, dated 20.02.2024. The said representation of the
detenu was dealt promptly with utmost care and caution and there was no
any willful or deliberate delay in disposal of the same on the part of the
Union of India.
It has been further submitted that the report as envisaged
under Section 3(5) of the NSA, 1980, was forwarded by the State
Government vide letter dated 08.02.2024. A copy of the same was received
in the Ministry vide e-mail dated 09.02.2024. Thereafter, the Central
Government considered the report as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the
NSA, 1980 on 13.02.2024. After due consideration, it was felt that there was
no reason to interfere with the aforesaid detention order. Further, there is
no provision in the act which provides that the Central Government has to
inform the detenu about the consideration of the report as envisaged under
Section 3(5) of the NSA, 1980.
[17] Furthermore, the learned CGSC submits that after filing the
affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 4, a copy of the
representation dated 03.08.2024 was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India only on 09.09.2024, vide its letter
dated 09.09.2024 through e-mail.
Subsequently, the representation dated 03.08.2024 of the
detenu was duly considered and not acceded to by the Central Government.
P a g e 16 | 18
Accordingly, the detenu along with authorities concerned were informed vide
wireless message dated 12.09.2024.
[18] After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is
unequivocally emerges that there is a delay of 1 (one) month in considering
the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government. The fact of
lapses in disposing the representation of the petitioner by more than 1 (one)
month is factually correct and the same is admitted by the learned counsels
for the respondents. The only recourse adopted by the learned counsel for
the official respondents is blaming each other in regard to the admitted delay
in disposing of the representation.
[19] At this stage, we are not concerned as to whose fault it is for
delaying and taking more than 1 (one) month in disposing of the
representation. We are concerned with the admitted delay in disposing of
the representation. In this regard, reference may be made to the
observations of preme Court order as narrated hereinabove
the Hon’ble Su
and the relevant paragraphs of the reports reproduced herein above.
Accordingly, the facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely
covered by the ratio of the report above extracted
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
decisions.
[20] urt in Aslam Ahmed
As per the Hon’ble Supreme Co ’s decision
Zahiri Ahmed Shaid (supra) and the observations
made in Vijay Kumar’s
case (supra); it is well settled that a representation should be considered
with reasonable expedition and any delay, supine indifference, slackness and
P a g e 17 | 18
callous attitude on the part of the authority shall effect the further detention
of the detenu.
[21] In our view, the supine indifference, slackness and callous
attitude on the part of the authority which caused unreasonably delay in
transmitting the representation, which was more than 1 (one) month, and
in disposing of the representation, was avoidable and unexplained and has
resulted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and
constitutionally impermissible. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition (cril)
and quash the impugned detention order dated 30.01.2024 and direct the
detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
[22] The present petition is disposed of, accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
P a g e 18 | 18