ANAND HANUMANTHSA KATARE Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on October 19,2006

ANAND HANUMATHSA KATARE Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MAYA AJIT SATAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
BABLOO TIWARI @ GOVIND TIWARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-3-155] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
Rampati Ganjhu @ Bhagwati Ganjhu VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. R SASIKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
INDU MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
MURUGGAVALLI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-479] [REFERRED TO]
PREEMA NAVITHA W/O SUNEEL KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-328] [REFERRED]
M THANGAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-324] [REFERRED]
K RAMALINGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBASAMUDRAM POLICE STATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-326] [REFERRED]
S. POONGKODI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-1288] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARAPPAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-198] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (in short the Act). The habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant who is brother-in-law of the detenu was dismissed by the High Court.
(3.)The order of detention was passed on 7.10.2005 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and the detenu was taken into custody that very day. Subsequently, the detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention dated 7.10.2005 which were also supplied to him that very day. The Detaining Authority submitted a report to the Government as required under law within 12 days from the date of order of detention, which passed an order approving the detention under Section 3(3) of the Act. The order of approval is dated 11.10.2005. The aforesaid order of detention was challenged before the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court the Advisory Board to whom the Government had referred the matter also approved the order of detention. The Government accepted the said report and passed an order in terms of Section 13 of the Act. The said order of the Government was not called in question by the detenu. Several points were urged in support of the habeas corpus petition. Primarily following points were urged in support of the habeas corpus petition. Firstly, even assuming that the detenu is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, his activities cannot be considered as likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Secondly, the detenu had submitted his reply to the Detaining Authority who rejected the same. Once the order passed under Section 3(2) has been approved by the State Government under Section 3(3, the Detaining Authority became functus officio and any representation given to the Detaining Authority ought to have been transmitted to be considered by the State Government. Thirdly, the proposals made by the Sponsoring Authority were verbatim reproduced in the grounds of detention. Fourthly, the orders of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court in respect of two cases were not supplied to him. Therefore, subjective satisfaction was affected. Fifthly, there was no report of the Forensic Department that the liquor sold or manufactured by the detenu was unfit for human consumption. Non-supply of order referred to above, rendered the order of detention vitiated. If it is held that the documents are not supplied then the Detaining Authoritys decision is based on irrelevant consideration. The Detaining Authority and the State Government countered each of the contentions.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.