9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment of Manipur at Imphal. It is alleged that on 13th May, 1981 he wrote a letter to Head Quarters, Peoples' Liberation Army, Eastern Region, an unlawful organisation in Manipur, promising financial help to the organisation in his official capacity. On 31.10.1981 the Army called him to its Head Quarters, Imphal and as soon as he reached there he was handed over to the Police Station on lodging a complaint (F.I.R.) against him for offences under Sections 121/121-A I.P.C. and 13 of U.A.P. Act. He was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.11.1981 and released on bail. However, at the instance of the police, when he visited the Police Station in the morning of 21.11.198U he was served with a detention order dated 20.11.1981 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter heads of the said firm. These bill forms and letter heads were obtained by you by means of extortion, as you were in a position to show favour to the said firm and similarly to show disfavour to the same, being in a position to grant/deny supply order to that firm. (c) That thereafter you issued the four supply order on 18.5.81, 20.5.81, 25.5.81 and 11.6.81 for a sum of ₹ 3,96,560/- in the name of M/s. Win Supply Agency for supply of various materials for electrical installations. The supply orders were, however, actually given to one Sanjoy Sharma of Yumnam Leikai, Nambul Mapal, a member of P.L.A. and his other associates. To the same persons you had handed over the bill orders and letter heads extorted by you from M/s. Win ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds but the High Court negatived all the grounds of challenge and dismissed the writ petition by its orders dated 25.1.1982 and 17.2.1982. The decision of the High Court is challenged in the instant appeal. Alternatively, he has approached this Court by a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging his detention. The appeal as well as the writ petition are being allowed for the reasons indicated below. 4. The main ground on which the impugned order of detention can be and has been successfully challenged by counsel for the appellant is that the constitutional safeguard of making effective representation against the detention, which is available to the appellant under Article 22(5), has been breached inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;'it is the right and duty of the Court to examine what are the basic facts and materials which are actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed by a mere statement of the detaining authority that it has taken into account only certain basic facts and materials and though other basic facts and materials were before it, it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction. It cannot be disputed that the statement of the appellant containing an alleged admission on his part of the type mentioned above would fall within the concept of basic facts and materials and since the statement was before the detaining authority it must have weighed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has got over this glaring breach of this constitutional safeguard by observing that the statement of Iboyaima Singh constituted the source of in formation about procurement of bill forms and blank letter heads and as such the detenu was not entitled to know the source of information and evidence for making an effective representation. It is not possible to agree with the High Court that the statement of Iboyaima Singh constituted the source of information; the manner in which the bill forms and the blank letter heads were allegedly procured by the appellant, namely, by exercise of influence, coercion or extortion, which allegedly facilitated the diversion of Government funds to the unlawful body, assumes considerable importance-regarding w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . funds has been made out. In other words, it is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the facts that obtained at the time of the passing of the impugned order. On this aspect the High Court has observed that in the grounds the expression used is manage and even the process of diversion (meaning attempted diversion) would fall within the ambit of the expression and that Annexures 3, 4, 6 and 7 together constituted the materials leading to the aforesaid ground. In our view, the question is not whether the expression manage is wide enough to include the process of diversion but the question is what case is the appellant called upon to meet. Has he to meet the case of actual or accomplished diver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
