Madan B. Lokur, C.J.@mdashHeard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing for Respondent No. 4. Also heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-Respondents.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a preventive detention order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Thoubal District u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
3. The allegation is that the Petitioner is a member of a banned organization called the Peoples United Liberation Front (''PULF''). It is alleged that this organization has the avowed aim and object of seceding the State of Manipur from the Union of India to create an independent sovereign State. To achieve this, the organization started procuring arms and ammunition through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities in Manipur. Over a period of time, members of the organization have committed serious and heinous crimes, such as, murder, dacoity, robbery extortion, kidnapping for ransom in different parts of Manipur. Its ring leaders have sought foreign assistance and established links with foreign countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, etc. The further allegation is that the organization has committed a series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of India.
4. It is stated that the Petitioner joined the organization in the first part of 2008 and thereafter began working in the Finance Section of the organization and extorted huge amounts of money. On 15.4.2008, the Petitioner was arrested by the police authorities in Thoubal and remanded to judicial custody for violating the provisions of Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [''the UA(P) Act'']. However, on an application having been moved for bail, the Petitioner was released from custody sometime in June 2008.
5. After being released on bail, the Petitioner re-joined the organization and continued his unlawful activities including that of extortion from the general public, government employees, schools, colleges, private firms etc. located in Thoubal District.
6. On 1st December, 2009 the Petitioner was arrested by the Thoubal Police and an FIR was lodged against him and others for violating the provisions of Sections 17/20 of the UA(P) Act. The Petitioner was then remanded to police custody till 8th December, 2009. While the Petitioner was in police custody, he was preventively detained by the order dated 8th December, 2009.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised two submissions before us.
8. The first submission is that there is no material before the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is likely to be released on bail and, therefore, the order of preventive detention is vitiated. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention.
9. As already mentioned herein above, for a similar activity the Petitioner had earlier been arrested in 2008 for violating the provisions of Section 20 UA(P) Act. Within two months of his arrest, the Petitioner was granted bail on the basis of the materials on record. The Detaining Authority was, under these circumstances, entitled to come to a subjective conclusion that the Petitioner was likely to again get bail for committing a similar offence for which he was arrested on 1.12.2009. Since there was some material with the Detaining Authority and that material is not totally-irrelevant, we do not find any substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and the prognosis made by him on relevant materials is beyond challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. The second submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had made a representation on 15.1.2010 to the Central Government through the Jail Superintendent. But this representation was dispatched to the Central Government only on 22.1.2010. It is submitted that there was an unexplained delay in forwarding the representation to the Central Government and a consequential delay in disposing of the representation of the Petitioner vitiated his preventive detention.
11. We are unable to agree with learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. We may note that 16th and 17th January were closed days being Saturday and Sunday. The representation dated 15.1.2010 was immediately forwarded by the Superintendent Jail to the State Government. Upon receipt of the representation, the State Government prepared parawise comments thereon and dispatched it to the Central Government on 22.1.2010 and it was received by the Central Government on the same day. It is not as if preparation of the parawise comments caused any delay. On the contrary, preparation of the parawise comments by the State Government enabled the prompt disposal of the representation by the Central Government.
12. But, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that there was no requirement of making parawise comments by the State Government and the Petitioner''s representation ought to have been immediately sent to the Central Government by the State Government. While it is true that there is no hard and fast rule requiring the State Government to send parawise comments on the representation, but that is the practice followed by the Central Government in dealing with a representation made by a detenue containing serious allegations.
13. In this case, the Petitioner mentioned in his representation that he has no connection with the PULF and this matter is within the knowledge of the State Government. It is also mentioned in the representation that the entire story put up against the Petitioner is concocted and fabricated. It is in view of these serious allegations that it was imperative for the State Government to put forward its point of view and deny that the averments made out against the State Government. It is under these circumstances that the State Government submitted its parawise comments to the allegations made in the representation. Therefore, by sending the representation to the Central Government along with the parawise comments, the State Government effectively speeded up the process of disposal of the representation. Consequently, there is no merit in this contention raised by the Petitioner.
14. In other point has been urge before us. The writ petition is dismissed.
