Judgment :- 1. Writ petition by the wife of a person who as of new is detained in central Prison at Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore, in terms of an order of detention dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Ramanagara District Ramanagara, exercising power under section 3[1] of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 [for short ‘the Act’] and ordering preventive detention of one Nizam @ Nizam Pasha, son of Wazir Ahmed resident of Ramanagara Town for a period of three months from the date of the order/detention. 2. Questioning his detention and claiming that it is illegal, inter alia, on the ground that the order and follow up action are clearly in violation of the safeguards provided to a detenu who is in preventive detention under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India; that the order is vitiated for not adhering to the requirements of Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the need or necessity to pass an order of preventive detention in respect of the person; that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without even examining the relevant material if any placed before the detaining authority; that even the material before the detaining authority was not one which could have led to the inference that the person is one indulging in prejudicial activity warranting his preventive detention etc.,; that the drastic and draconian power of preventive detention is exercised in a mala fide manner and more on political considerations rather than relevant considerations and therefore the order is vitiated and deserves to be quashed, the present writ petition. 3. Writ petition was admitted on 16.11.2011 and emergent notice was ordered to the respondents. Sri. Indiresh, learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 7 and the matter was directed to be listed after two weeks. Learned Government Pleader took time again 1.12.2011 and so also on 9.12.2011 for filing objections on behalf of the respondents. 4. Ultimately, on behalf of the respondents, statement of objections has been placed before the court on 15.12.2011 and the matter was heard in part and is being continued today. 5. We have heard Sri. Javahar Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. 4. Ultimately, on behalf of the respondents, statement of objections has been placed before the court on 15.12.2011 and the matter was heard in part and is being continued today. 5. We have heard Sri. Javahar Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Indiresh, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 7. 6. We find that the present case is a typical example of the bureaucratic arrogance exhibited while functioning as administrators in this country and even while exercising statutory powers of considerable impact on the rights and liberty of citizens, particularly, involving fundamental right of free movement and liberty of an individual and while denying liberty by incarcerating a person on doubt or suspicion that he may indulge in prejudicial activities in future and without affording him an opportunity of trial as is otherwise the position for imprisoning any person in this country, even such a drastic, draconic power is exercised in a casual manner and no attempt is made to correct the mistake or illegalities though is realised! 7. While the Constitution has recognized the evil of preventive detention to be retained as part of the executive power of the State, nevertheless, the framers of the Constitution have ensured sufficient safeguards to be extended to a detenu and have incorporated such safeguards in part-III of the Constitution of India, particularly in Article 22 as in 22 [5] and 22[6] of the Constitution of India. 8. One significant safeguard is to be found in Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India reading as under: “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases— [5] When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.” in respect of persons in preventive detention which is that they should be apprised as soon may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order is made and should also be intimated that they have an opportunity to make representations against the detention order to the detaining authority and other authorities who have the power or authority to revoke the order of detention etc. This provision has been incorporated in terms of section 8 of the Act reading as under: “8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order:- [1] When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. [2] Nothing in sub-section [1] shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.” 9. While one of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner to attack the order of detention is that the power of passing an order of preventive detention has been used for extraneous considerations etc., and the reference made by the detaining authority to some of the material and information which was before him while does indicate that the detenu was a person who was indulging in prejudicial activities and which constitute offences punishable under chapters 16, 17 and 22 of IPC and the satisfaction of passing an order of preventive detention by the authority being personal to him, we would not like to go further into this aspect, but would prefer to examine the procedural compliances with the statutory requirements and if they are in adherence to the constitutional safeguards. 10. Though statement of objections has been placed before this court as noticed earlier on 15.12.2011 and is supported by the affidavit of the detaining authority himself i.e., S Puttaswamy, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Ramanagar District, Ramanagar, the statement is blissfully silent about such compliances, not only about the statutory requirements, but on the other hand also makes an admission that grounds of detention have not been furnished and it is sought to be characterized as bonafide act etc. It is this attitude of the detaining authority which has necessitated this court to comment upon the manner of functioning of the executive part of the state as above. 11. It is this attitude of the detaining authority which has necessitated this court to comment upon the manner of functioning of the executive part of the state as above. 11. Non furnishing of the grounds of detention based on which the detaining authority passed an order of detention is a clear statutory and constitutional violation and the statement is a clear admission of such a violation of not only section 8 of the Act but also Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India. 12. We were taken aback, even shocked to come to know such state of affairs that even on date, no grounds of detention based on which the order had been passed has been furnished to the detenu. This constitutes a glaring statutory violation committed on the part of the detaining authority and the only inference that we can draw in this circumstance is that the drastic draconian power of passing an order of preventive detention has been exercised in a very casual or laconic manner and not necessarily for relevant purposes, but on irrelevant considerations. 13. The power of passing an order of preventive detention being a very drastic, draconian power, it should be exercised with great caution on relevant considerations and when there is need and not as a matter of routine nor in a casual or laconic manner, it is also very necessary for the administration, to educate persons who have been conferred with such statutory power, to ensure that they are fully familiarized not only with the nature of legislation but also about the statutory safeguards required to be adhered to and also the constitutional safeguards which are all bound to be observed. 14. Passing an order of preventive detention is a very serious business. It is an inroad the rights and liberty of a citizen and of any person against whom such an order is passed. Such power should be exercised with great care, caution and trepidation and if the power is not exercised in a proper manner, the very purpose and object of having such enactment will be defeated as perhaps a person whose preventive detention may be desirable and is justified as may otherwise get the benefit of non compliance with statutory requirements and violation of constitutional safeguards and will have to be set free. 15. 15. It is therefore that the State Government, particularly, the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to take sufficient interest in the matter, ensure that the detaining authorities being the District Magistrates in the present enactment are all properly educated, apprised and made aware of the requirements of the law and the constitution and the power is exercised in a bonafide manner on relevant considerations and where it is really warranted and not as a matter of course or on other considerations. 16. In the present case, we have no choice but to quash the order of detention by issue of a writ of certiorari. 17. This writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. 18. The order of detention bearing No.RAJIKA/MAG/CR/115/11-12 dated 12.10.2011 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Ramanagara District, [copy at Annexure-A] is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 19. We direct the detenu-Nizam @ Nizam Pasha, son of Wazir Ahmed, be set at liberty forthwith if not require din any other case. 20. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this order to the seventh respondent-Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, forthwith. 21. We also direct the Registrar General to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka as well as Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka, for necessary follow up action at their end.