P. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the 1st respondent; the order of approval dated 16.5.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order of confirmation dated 18.6.2015. The order at Annexure-A dated 8.5.2015 is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) r/w Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) for detaining Mr. Lokesha @ Mulama s/o late Venkatesha. The Commissioner of Police being satisfied that the said Lokesha is a goonda as defined under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention. Along with the detention order, grounds of detention were served on the detenue. The order of detention dated 8.5.2015 passed under Section 3(2) r/w Section 3(1) of the Act vide Annexure A is approved by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-C dated 16.5.2015. Subsequently, the detention order is confirmed by the 2nd respondent on 18.6.2015 vide Annexure-D. All the aforementioned orders are impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner taking us through the grounds of detention and the documents served on the detenue, argued among other grounds that illegible copies of relevant relied upon documents were furnished to the detenue by the detaining authority; that the copies of bail application and the bail order relied upon by the detaining authority are not furnished to the detenue and hence the detenue did not have adequate opportunity to submit the representation before the detaining authority as well as the State Government. Learned advocate draws the attention of the Court to the specific contentions taken by the petitioner (the wife of the detenue) in the writ petition at paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13. He further submits that the detenue admittedly does not know English; though the detenue is furnished with three volumes (1,245 pages, in total) containing the relied upon documents for passing the detention order, number of the relied upon documents found therein are in English; Kannada translation of the said documents has not been furnished and hence the detentue has not been able to understand the contents of such documents, which has badly affected his right to make appropriate representation before the concerned. Learned advocate for the petitioner lastly submits that the representation of the detenue filed before the Advisory Board is not considered by the State Government and hence the detention order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) In the matter on hand, though the detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenue and though the grounds of detention specify that it is open for the detenue to make representation before the detaining authority, the Advisory Board as well as the State Government, the detenue has made representation only before the Advisory Board and he has not made any representation either before the detaining authority or the State Government. Despite the same, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is incumbent on the State Government to consider the representation filed by the detenue before the Advisory Board inasmuch as the representation was sent through the State Government. He relies upon the five-Judge Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAYANARAYAN .vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 1970 AIR(SC) 675 in support of the said contention.