SHRENIKA HUCHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, wife of Sri.Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag, (for short 'detenue') has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of detention of her husband under the provisions of The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Goonda Act") dtd. 10/4/2023 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Vijayapur (respondent No.2) in case bearing No.MAG-CR-24/2021- 22, as well as the confirmation order passed by the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Department of Internal Administration (Law and Order), (respondent No.1) vide order bearing No.HD 211 SST 2023 dtd. 19/4/2023 for a period of 12 months.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner is the wife of Sri.Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag i.e., detenue and they both are the residents of Ambedkar Nagar, Indi. It has been stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police Indi, Sub Division, Indi, submitted a report bearing No.1702:2022 dtd. 4/10/2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapur for accepting the proposal of Circle Inspector, Indi, for invoking the provisions of Goonda Act against the detenue. Based on the same, the respondent No.3 i.e., Superintendent of Police submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner and the District Magistrate, Vijayapur, in case bearing No.16/DCRB/169/2023 dtd. 8/4/2023 to invoke the provisions of Goonda Act, 1985, against the detenue for preventive detention under Sec. 2(g) of the said Act. Accordingly, respondent No.3 i.e., sponsoring authority along with the proposal, submitted compilation of documents containing the particulars of the detenue i.e., social, educational, economical background and the particulars of the cases in which the detenue is allegedly involved. On the basis of the said proposal submitted by respondent No.3 i.e., sponsoring authority, the respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Sec. 3(1) of the Goonda Act passed an order dtd. 10/4/2023 in case bearing No. MAG/CR- 24/2021-22 as per Annexure-A, detaining the detenue for an initial period of 12 days starting from the date of passing of the order. That on 10/4/2023 the detaining authority supplied the documents to the detenue and respondent No.2 also intimated the detenue about the detention order dtd. 10/4/2023, that he can prefer an appeal to the State Government and Advisory Board against the order of preventive detention. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide letter bearing No. MAG/CR-24/2021- 22 dtd. 11/4/2021 forwarded the proposal to respondent No.1 for confirmation/approval of the order of preventive detention of the detenue and based on such proposal, the respondent No.1 i.e., State Government confirmed the order of detention passed by respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 19/4/2023 bearing order No.HD 211 SST 2023 as per Annexure-D and thereby directed the detenue to be kept in detention for a period of 12 months starting from 10/4/2023. The said order of detention is challenged under this writ petition. However, before filing this writ petition, the petitioner has filed WP.(HC) No. 200006/2023 before the co-ordinate bench of this Court, which came to be disposed of by order dtd. 20/6/2023 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition against the detention orders. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) We have heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.Ismail Zabiulla, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for Sri.Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, Government Advocate appearing for respondents.