BHAVANI Vs. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition has sought to declare the detention of Viji alias Vijendran S/o. Late Gopala alias Gopalswamy by order of detention bearing No. CRM (4)/DTN/12/2014, dated 25 -8 -2014 (Annexure -A) and confirmation order bearing No. HD 453 SST 2014, dated 27 -9 -2014 (Annexure -B) issued by respondent 2 as illegal and void ab initio and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to release the detenue. The brief facts of the case are: petitioner is the mother of the detenu and she has questioned the correctness of the order of detention dated 25 -8 -2014 passed by the third respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug -offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum -grabbers Act, 1985 read with Government order dated 3 -6 -2014. Further it is contended that, respondent 1 by order dated 27 -9 -2014 has confirmed the detention order and issued an order of detention under Section 12(1) of the said Act. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that, the detenu has been provided with the relied upon documents numbering 1 to 801 on which the Detaining Authority has purportedly derived subjective satisfaction and based thereupon had purportedly confirmed the order of detention. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the grounds of detention on which it is purported to have been confirmed, the petitioner has presented this petition.

(2.) WE have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) FURTHER , he placed reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th August, 2014 passed in W.P. (HC) No. 57 of 2014 (M.A. Illyas v. State of Karnataka and Others) and dated 29th October, 2014 in W.P. (HC) No. 129 of 2014 (Susheelamma v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others), and submitted that, the Division Bench of this Court has consistently held that non -supplying of legible documents to the detenu violates mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that the orders passed by the Competent Authorities of the respondents are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, without going further into the merit and demerits of this case.