C VANATHAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking declaration of the detention of his brother one Sri thomas, as illegal and void ab inilio and for a direction to produce the detenu and for his release.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are as under : sri Thomas has been detained in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy commissioner and District Magistrate, Bellary under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Drug-offenders, Gamblers, goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act' ). The grounds of detention enclosed to the detention order disclose that the said detenu was involved in as many as 23 cases which are registered against him in the T. B. Dam police Station under various provisions of indian Penal Code. On perusal of the aforesaid legal proceedings, the Deputy commissioner was of the opinion that the offences committed by him have caused danger harm and a feeling of insecurity among the general public and the public order has been adversely affected and that he is in the habit of committing offences with unflinching regularity and that he is not amenable to the ordinary laws and has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, has passed the detention order in public interest. The order of detention is dated 25th July 2005. As required under law, he has reported the said fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made. The Government, on going through the said report, has in turn approved the order of detention within twelve days from the date of the order. On this aspect there is no dispute. Thereafter, the grounds of detention have been duly served on the detenu and the matter was referred to the Advisory board within the stipulated period. Even before the Advisory Board, the detenu has been heard and thereafter the Advisory board has submitted its report holding that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Acting on the said report of the advisory Board, the Government being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person, has confirmed the order of detention. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner raised three contentions challenging the impugned order. Firstly, it was contended that unless the order of detention passed by the deputy Commissioner is confirmed by the government, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take the detenu into custody and detain him. Secondly, it was contended that the detaining authority has not looked into the legal proceedings (sic) where has been acquitted and therefore, the detention order is bad for non-application of mind. Finally, it was contended that the government, without proper application of mind blindly acting on the report of the advisory Board has confirmed the order of detention, which is illegal.