KARTHIK @ ULLALU KARTHIK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Karthik @ Ullalu Karthik before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of detention under the Karnataka Goondas Act, 1985 (for short 'Goondas Act') dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and the subsequent order of confirmation dated 21.12.2020 as well as the order passed by the State Government dated 30.01.2021 confirming the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru. It has been stated that the Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, has passed an order of detention against the petitioner and as required under the statute, the same was approved by the State Government as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Goondas Act. The petitioner has further stated that as per the statutory provisions of law governing the field, the matter has to be placed before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Goondas Act. The petitioner's case was also referred to the Advisory Board on 29.12.2020. The petitioner has further stated that he was directed to appear before the Advisory Board on 11.01.2021 and the petitioner did appear before the Advisory Board. The petitioner submitted a representation on 12.01.2021 and the same was not considered by the Advisory Board subsequently. It has been informed that the proceedings and the reports of the Advisory Board were submitted on 27.01.2021 with a opinion to the State Government to affirm the order of detention and finally the State Government has passed an order of confirmation dated 30.01.2021. The petitioner's grievance is that the representation submitted by him on 12.01.2021 has been looked into neither by the Advisory Board nor by the State Government at any point of time and the proceedings of the Advisory Board were drawn on 27.12.2021. As we are dealing with the non-consideration of the representation, at the first instance, other grounds raised by the petitioner are not being looked into.

(3.) The State Government has filed a reply in the matter and the State Government has enclosed a copy of the representation submitted by the detenue along with its reply. The same is on record at page 70 in Kannada language and therefore, as it has been filed by the State Government only, it has not been denied by the State Government that representation was preferred on 12.01.2021. There is no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner has filed a detailed and exhaustive representation and it was certainly preferred by the petitioner to the Advisory Board. The State Government has not commented upon the aforesaid representation in its reply. The State Government has nowhere stated that the representation was considered by the Advisory Board or the State Government at any point of time. On the contrary, while filing the additional statement of objections, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Sri Basavaraj, Police Inspector, C.C.B., Bengaluru, has stated that no details of the representation have been furnished by the petitioner. Paragraph No.5 of the additional statement of objections is reproduced as under: