Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 535 (KAR)

Martina Mala v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-01

R.B.BUDIHAL, VINEET SARAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Ivin Kumar, husband of the petitioner, was detained on 10.9.2014 under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short 'Act of 1985'). The approval to the detention order was accorded on 10.9.2014 and the matter was sent to the Advisory Board on 22.9.2014, the report of which was received on 10.10.2014. Finally, the confirmation order was passed by the Government of Karnataka on 21 10.2014. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.3) and dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Government of Karnataka, this petition has been filed. 2. We have heard S. S.G. Rajendra Reddy appearing for Sri. C. R. Raghavcndra Ready, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.V. Manjunath, learnAGA appearing for the State respondents and perused the records. 3. The submission of Sri. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is three folds. It is firstly contended that though the period for such detention could extend up to 12 months, but under the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act of 1985, the initial confirmation could not have been for a period beyond three months and could thereafter be extended from time to time for further such period but not beyond twelve months. It is contended that by the order dated 21.10.2014, the State Government has at the first instance itself passed the order for extension of order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on 10.9.2014 for a period of twelve months, which, as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner,- is against the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 4. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the copies which were supplied to the petitioner along with the detention order were not legible and hence the detenue could not submit his reply/representation. It was lastly submitted that the detention order vas vague in as much as, it mentions that the detenue has not brought any change in his life style and continued anti- social activities affecting public peace and order, without specifying and giving incidences of the same. The said order also mentions about the detenue had violated bail conditions, without specifying as to which condition has been violated by him in pursuance of which bail order and in which case. The said order also mentions about the detenue had violated bail conditions, without specifying as to which condition has been violated by him in pursuance of which bail order and in which case. It has thus been contended that in view of the vagueness of the order, no proper reply could be submitted by the detenue. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has however submitted that the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act may provide for extension of three months at a time, but in view of the State Government having the option co extend it up to twelve months, the extension granted for a period of twelve months in one go would not make the order dated 21.10,2014 illegal. As regards the second ground, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the legible copies of all the documents were given to the detenue and in any case all the documents and papers which were supplied were already with the detenue, as they all related to the cases against him and the orders passed therein and it is only for the sake of raising objection that such ground has been taken. 6. As regards the last contention that the order of detention dated 10.9.2014 is vague, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the details of all the cases in which the detenue was involved have been given in the detention order and merely because details of the cases in which bail conditions have been violated have not been given, the order of detention cannot become vague and thus illegal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we arc of the opinion that the order dated 21.10.2014 is against the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1985, more particularly, the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act, which clearly provides that extension can be granted for a period not exceeding three months in one go and the total period of extension can be up to twelve months. 8. In our view the passing of the order of extension for a period of twelve months at the first instance would be against the spirit of the Act and the specific terms of the proviso to sub- Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act. 8. In our view the passing of the order of extension for a period of twelve months at the first instance would be against the spirit of the Act and the specific terms of the proviso to sub- Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act. Such view of ours is also supported by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashmiri Zakir Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore in WPHC No.87/2014 decided on 18.8.2014. 9. We are further of the view that the documents supplied to the detenue may or may not have been legible, but the order dated 10.9.2014 mentioning that the detenue has violated the bail conditions without specifying that in which case, which condition of bail had been violated by the detenue, would make the order vague, as the detenue would be handicapped while giving a reply without there being specific details of the cases regarding which, reply or representation could be submitted by him. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed. The order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the respondent No.2, are quashed and the detention of the detenue Ivin Kumar is held to be illegal. The prison authorities are hereby directed to release the detenue forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The High Court registry is directed to send the copy of the order to the competent authorities of the prison immediately.