Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 531 (KAR)

Vidyavathi G. v. State of Karnataka

2015-05-26

ANAND BYRAREDDY, B.VEERAPPA

body2015
ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner herein is the wife of detenue namely Gopi alias Gopal S/o. Pille Rangappa, resident of Shivamogga. He has been detained under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1985. Since the detenue is unable to approach this Court challenging the alleged illegal detention, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. It is claimed that the detenue has been taken into custody on 11-4-2015 and the order of detention dated 11-4-2015 is at Annexure-A to the petition. The detention order indicates that the detenue has been indulging, abetting and attempting to commit alleged offences punishable under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which includes gambling relating to Matka or betting in any game of chance and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is likely to influence the youngsters and poor families to indulge in gambling and thereby jeopardized their lives. The Detaining Authority has relied upon six cases in respect of this detenue, which indicates the grounds of detention, out of which, in four cases, the detenue has been convicted. It is claimed that he is frequently indulging in antisocial activities and therefore, the respondent 2 has passed the detention order. The respondent 2 has forwarded for confirmation by the State Government of the said detention order and the State Government has been pleased to confirm the same on 20-4-2015. The detenue was seemed to have received the intimation and he was made to appear before the Advisory Board on 4-5-2015 and he is said to have been produced before the Advisory Board on that day and the Advisory Board by its order dated 5-5-2015, has confirmed the same. 3. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the detention, primarily on the ground that the respondents have denied the right of representation to the Detaining Authority. It has not been made known to the detenue. This Court in an earlier order rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (HC) No. 1 of 2014, was pleased to hold as hereunder: "4. Heard learned Counsels. It is not in dispute that an opportunity shall be given to the detenue to give a representation to consider his case to the detaining authority only. This Court in an earlier order rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (HC) No. 1 of 2014, was pleased to hold as hereunder: "4. Heard learned Counsels. It is not in dispute that an opportunity shall be given to the detenue to give a representation to consider his case to the detaining authority only. Unfortunately in the present case, vide Annexure-A the 1st respondent has stated in his order that if the petitioner's husband so desires to make a representation he can send a representation to the State of Karnataka through the Superintendent of Jail which is quite contrary to the provisions of the Act and also Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India". And accordingly, has held that proceedings were vitiated. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit, similarly in the present case on hand, the petitioner has not given any opportunity to see the Detaining Authority. It is evident from Annexures-C and D, which are Kannada and English version of the said order. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate would seek to interpret the tenor of the order and also pointed out providing an opportunity to make representation to the Detaining Authority. 6. On a plain reading of the same, the English Version does not contain any reference to such opportunity to be granted to the detenue. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is released from detention. The operative portion of the order shall be communicated to the 5th respondent. A copy of the order shall be furnished to the Counsel forthwith.