MANOJ KULAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police vide Order No. HD 72 SST 2013, dated 4-9-2014 at Annexure-A and confirmed by the 1st respondent-the State vide Order No. HD 510 SST 2014, dated 8-12-2014 at Annexure-B, in respect of the detenue-Manoj Kulal alias Manju. The orders are passed under Section 3(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 1985) popularly known as Goonda Act. Sri Aruna Shyam M. learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a social worker. He is engaged in social service in the locality of Mangalore. Out of rivalry, he has been scandalised and false cases are foisted against him. Some of the false cases registered against him ended in his acquittal. At no point of time, he violated the terms of the bail order. The 1st respondent passed the detention order by referring to his involvement in several cases. But in none of the cases, application was filed by the prosecution for cancellation of the bail, on the ground of violation of terms of the bail order. He made several representations through Superintendent of Police, Mangalore Jail against the detention orders and an endorsement dated 3-12-2014 signed by the Commissioner on 3-1-2015 is given to him that his representation cannot be considered and the same is forwarded to the Home Department. The detention order is passed at Mangalore but he is jailed at Dharwad, thereby, distancing him from availing the assistance of his family and friends to take legal assistance.

(2.) In reply, Sri H.V. Manjunatha, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the detenu since without submitting his representation to the Advisory Board, directly made representation to the respondent, his representation was not considered.

(3.) Once the detention order is executed, the provisions of the Act under Section 8 shall follow. detenu shall be given opportunity of making representation to the State under Section 8(1) of the Act. Under Section 10 of the Act, the matter shall be referred to the Advisory Board along with his representation if such representation is already made to the State. The procedure before the Advisory Board is contemplated in Section 11 of the Act. Before the Advisory Board if any request is made by the detenu or the Board on it's own, if feels necessary, on consideration of material before it, may give it's audience to the detenu and submit it's report on overall consideration of material before it, within seven weeks from the date of detention order. Depending on the report of the Advisory Board, the State acting under Section 12 of the Act, will confirm detention order or revoke the detention order. Section 14 of the Act enables the Government at anytime to revoke or modify the detention order. But in the case on hand, the respondents blatantly violated the above mandatory provisions by forwarding the representation to Home Department under the pretext that it is not the stage to consider his representation. We are at a loss to understand what is that stage, the representation was to reach the Commissioner?