ANITHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is wife of one Vediappan @ Vedi, has filed this petition to declare the detention of said Vediappan @ Vedi by order No CRM(4)DTN/02/2013 dated 27-3-2013 [copies at Annexure-A & B to the writ petition], passed by the first respondent and the confirmation order in No HD 133 SST 2013 dated 4-4-2013 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition], passed by the second respondent, as illegal and void ab initio.

(2.) Pursuant to the detention order dated 27-3-2013, passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 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], as per Annexure-A to the writ petition, holding that the husband of petitioner is a goonda as defined under clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act, as required under the law, the order of detention was served on him, which is in Kannada language along with an English version of the order as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. The order of detention was forwarded to the second respondent - state government for its approval within 12 days from the date of detention order, as required under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The request of the detenu was placed before the advisory board and the advisory board rejected the request of the detenu. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Though several grounds are urged in the writ petition, the main contentions of Sri Kiran S Jawali, learned counsel for the petitioner are two. According to him, the detention order furnished to the detenu in English language does not indicate that the petitioner's husband has a right to make a representation to the state government to consider his request for release and quashing of the order of detention, as required under Section 8 of the Act. The other contention of the petitioner is that when her husbanddetenu was already in judicial custody pursuant to an order passed in a criminal case, when there were no reasons for the first respondent to infer that the detenu would get an order of bail from the competent court and after getting such bail, he would indulge in illegal activities as defined in the Act. Therefore, he requested the court to set aside the order of detention.