RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the father of the detenue questioning the validity of the detention of his son (detenue) Prakash @ Kashi @ Vandre, by the orders dated 9.2.2018 at Annexures-A to D passed by respondent No.2, approval order bearing No.HD.140.SST.2018, dated 19.2.2018 passed by respondent No.1 and the order of confirmation bearing No.HD.140.SST.2018, dated 16.3.2018 passed by respondent No.1, as illegal and void and ab initio.

(2.) The learned counsel Sri Ranganatha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the father of the detenue, who has been detained under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short 'Goonda Act') and now currently detenue is in the central prison. By virtue of the orders at Annexures-A and B passed by respondent No.2, the detenue had been detained in the jail and the same has been confirmed by respondent No.1 by the orders at Annexures-E and F. He further submitted that the order of detention contains the fact that the detenue is 26 years old, he discontinued his studies and his date of birth is 16.11.1990. His mother tongue being Tamil, he learnt to speak Kannada and Tamil. But the order of the detention passed by respondents is without any effective communication to the detenue so as to make a representation against the order of detention as he does not know other language than Tamil. He further submitted that failure to provide the grounds in the language known to the detenue is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India and as such the same are liable to be set aside. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others, (1981) AIR SC 1153. He further submitted that oral explanation of such order is not sufficient and non-supply of the translation in the language known to the detenue becomes illegal and it violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hadibandhu Das Vs. District Magistrate and another, (1969) AIR SC 43. He further submitted that the scope of enquiry of the preventive detention is subjective satisfaction and if the order is vague or extraneous, it vitiates the subjective satisfaction. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Biram Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1974) AIR SC 1161. He further submitted that non-explanation of the grounds to the detenue in his language, amounts to nothing but not granting him an opportunity to make an effective representation and in that light the detention made is invalid. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Raheem Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1998) CrLJ 1151. He further contended that there is an unexplained delay in passing the order of detention which is going to prejudice the detenue and even the grounds and material brought on record for launching the prosecution for detention are vague and as such the same are not sustainable in law. He further submitted that there is a difference between public order and law & order, the grounds on which the detenue has been detained can be prevented by virtue of law & order and the criminal cases have already been registered against him and he has already been released on bail. But there is no material to show that there is a breach of public order and as such the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.K.Saravana Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in Criminal Appeal No.1332/2008. He further submitted that the detention order passed by the second respondent is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and it is in violation of fundamental right enshrined under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that even if the criminal cases registered against the detenue are taken to be true even then the activities are not going to prejudice to the public order. In that light, he prayed that the petition may be allowed by quashing the impugned orders at Annexures-A to F.

(3.) Per contra, Sri A.M.Suresh Reddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the detenue is a rowdysheeter and a rowdysheet has been opened against him. As many as nine cases have been registered against the detenue in which he has been involved. He further submitted that detenue is a habitual offender and has committed the offences punishable under Chapters 8, 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC and also he is considered to be a goonda as per the provisions of Section 2(g) of Goonda Act. He further submitted that the detenue has formed his own gang and moves with dangerous weapons and has created fear in the minds of innocent people and public at large and thereby he has caused breach of public peace and order, which became very difficult to maintain the public peace and order. He further submitted that the detention order has been passed both in Kannada and English versions and Detaining Authority has also explained to detenue the grounds of detention in the language known to him and even the representation dated 26.2.2018 made by the detenue before the Advisory Board clearly indicates that he understood the grounds and the orders passed by the respondents and thereafter a detailed representation has been made before the Advisory Board and thereafter the Advisory Board has also passed an order confirming the detention order. He further submitted that the contention of the detenue that he knows only Tamil and has studied in Tamil medium and the grounds of detention have been served in the language which is not known to him and no opportunity was given to him to make an effective representation cannot be accepted. On going through the records, it is clear that the detenue had made his representation before the Advisory Board and has also personally appeared before the Board and after hearing him, the Advisory Board has also confirmed the order of detention. Therefore, he cannot now contend that he does not know the grounds of detention and it indicates that he is aware of the nature of allegations made against him and the same is not liable to be accepted. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayanth Jadav Vs. State of West Bengal, (1974) 4 SCC 50 He further submitted that the Court should apply its common sense and mind to know whether there is any ground and whether the grounds have been properly explained to the detenue and he understood the same. There is every possibility of misuse of powers by the authorities and as such the said provisions should be strictly construed. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Mehtha Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others, (1985) Supp1 SCC 144. He further submitted that father of the detenue is aware of the facts and the language as such the said order is a speaking order and the detenue has properly represented even before the Advisory Board. If the authority after satisfaction passes the detention order by considering all the materials by giving opportunity of representation then under such circumstances, the said order cannot be considered to be in violation of Constitution of India. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of West Bengal and others Vs. Madanlal Agarwala,1975 3 SCC 1198. He further submitted that the order of detention is valid and in accordance with law. Detenue is an ante-socio element and in order to prevent the activities of the rowdysheeter, it is very much necessary to pass the detention order. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to quash the impugned orders and the same are liable to be confirmed by dismissing the petition.