Manipur High Court
Laishram Ramesh Singh vs District Magistrate on 22 July, 2025
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.22 17:18:41 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(Crl.) No. 8 of 2025
Laishram Ramesh Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
District Magistrate, Imphal East and 3 others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
ORDER
(A. Bimol Singh, J)
22.07.2025
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Gangarani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Th. Vashum,
learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. W.
Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the respondent No.4.
[2] The present petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the order dated 30th April, 2025 issued by the District Magistrate,
Imphal East district ordering for detaining the petitioner under the
provisions of Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA for short),
order dated 12.05.2025 issued by the Commissioner (Home), Government
of Manipur; approving the detention order passed by the District Magistrate,
Imphal East as well as the order dated 27.05.2025 issued by the
Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur confirming the order of
1|Page
detention and ordering for detaining the petitioner for a period of 12
(twelve) months from the date of detention. Even though several grounds
have been raised in the present writ petition, the senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner canvased only one ground in challenging the said
impugned detention orders. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that under cover of a letter dated 12.05.2025 from one of the
counsel of the petitioner, a representation dated 12.05.2025 addressed to
the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security
Department), North Block, New Delhi- 110001 was furnished to the
Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, with a request for
communicating the same to the concerned authority after obtaining
signature of the petitioner for their consideration.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that even though the said
representation was submitted to the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail,
Sajiwa on 12.05.2025, the authorities of the Jail Department forwarded the
said representation to the Home Department, Government of Manipur under
a letter dated 21.05.2025 from the Additional DGP, Prison and the same
was received by the Home Department only on 22.05.2025. Thereafter, the
Home Department, Government of Manipur forwarded the same to the
concerned authorities of the Central Government and the authorities of the
Central Government received the same only on 26.05.2025. These factums
are clearly stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the
respondent No. 4 at para 4.(I). It is also to be put on record that Mr. Th.
2|Page
Vashum, learned GA fairly submitted before this Court that on checking the
relevant file of the Government, it is ascertained that the submission made
by the learned senior counsel is found on record.
[4] Mr. Ch. Ngongo, the learned senior counsel submitted that the
authorities took 15 (fifteen) days in forwarding the representation submitted
by the petitioner to the appropriate authorities of the Government and such
delay in forwarding the representation infringe the fundamental rights of
the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
and that on this ground alone, the impugned detention orders are liable to
be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, the learned senior
counsel cited the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs Union Of India and Ors.
reported in AIR 1989 SCC 1403, wherein it has been, inter alia, held as
under :
“9. Thus when it is emphasised and re-emphasised
by a series of decisions of this Court that a
representation should be considered with reasonable
expedition, it is imperative on the part of every
authority, whether in merely transmitting or dealing
with it, to discharge that obligation with all
reasonable promptness and diligence without giving
room for any complaint of remissness, indifference or
avoidable delay because the delay, caused by
slackness on the part of any authority, will ultimately
result in the delay of the disposal of the
representation which in turn may invalidate the order
3|Page
of detention as having infringed the mandate of Art.
22(5) of the Constitution.
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 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
overlooked the same and allowed the Writ Petition on
the subsequent time lag, made the following
observation:
"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 earliest 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
4|Page
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.”
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.
Indisputably 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 for a
period of 7 days, and 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
5|Page
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.”
[5] After hearing the submission advanced by learned counsel
appearing for the parties and in view of the candid submission made by the
learned GA that it is on record that the authorities took 15 (fifteen) days in
forwarding the representation submitted by the petitioner to the concerned
authorities of the Central Government and that as there is no dispute with
regard to the fact that the authorities took 15 (fifteen) days in forwarding
the representation submitted by the petitioner, we are of the considered
view that such inaction or delay in taking action by the authorities had
deprived the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India of affording the earliest opportunity to make his
representation against his detention.
6|Page
[6] We have also carefully perused the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik”
(supra) and we are of the considered view that the facts and the
circumstances and the principle of law laid down therein squarely cover the
issue raised in this writ petition. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold
that the detention orders impugned in the present writ petition is vitiated
by the delay in forwarding the representation submitted by the petitioner.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned detention order dated 30.04.2025,
the approval order dated 12.05.2025 and confirmation order dated
27.05.2025. Consequently, we direct the authorities to release the petitioner
forthwith if his continued detention is not required in connection with any
other cases pending against him.
[7] With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
7|Page
