ARCHANA H C Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan district, Hassan dated 9-12-2013, detaining the husband of petitioner by name Hemanth alias Taxi Hemanth, on the ground that he is a gambler, as defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1995) [for short, the Act]. Opining that the said Hemanth was an habitual offender and to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, exercising the power vested in him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order of detention. The matter was placed before the Advisory Board on 2-1-2014 and the Advisory Board has confirmed the order of detention. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

(2.) Though several grounds are urged in the petition by the petitioner, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of detention has to be quashed solely on the ground that the respondents have failed to refer the matter to the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention order, as required under Section 10 of the Act. According to him, when the respondents have placed the matter before the Advisory Board on 2-1-2014, it was not well within three weeks from the date of detention. Therefore, he requests the court to allow this petition by quashing the order of detention.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate does not dispute the date of placing the matter before the Advisory Board on 2-1-2014. If we calculate the period of three weeks from 9-12-2013, the respondents were required to place the matter before the Advisory Board on or before 30-12-2013. Instead of placing the matter before the Advisory Board on or before 30-12-2013, the matter was placed before the Board only on 2-1-2014, which is contrary to Section 10 of the Act. In the circumstance, solely on this technical ground, the impugned order of detention has to be quashed.