PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the detention order dtd. 12/12/2024 and the extension of the period of detention by order dtd. 5/11/2024.

(2.) The third respondent Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot submitted a report on 4/11/2024 to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bagalkot stating the grounds for preventive detention of the petitioner under the provisions of The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short 'GOONDA Act'). The second respondent passed an order of detention on 5/11/2024 ordering arrest and detention of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent State Government passed an order on 12/12/2024 extending the period of detention for a period of one year commencing from 5/11/2024.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 100146/2025 raising a challenge to the impugned orders. However, what was contended before this Court was that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPHC No. 100003/2014 and connected matters, which were decided on 4/9/2014 had opined that u/s 3(2) proviso of the GOONDA Act, the maximum period for detention can only be for three months; if certain persons have been given the benefit of the proposition that detention orders cannot be beyond three months, the others who are similarly situated cannot be denied the benefit; the petitioner's wife has filed a representation, but the representation has not been considered. However, the Co-ordinate Bench accepted the submission made on behalf of the respondent State Government and declined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. Further, since the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to address his arguments, based on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and Others,(2023) 9 SCC 587. the Co-ordinate Bench held that there were no pleadings in the writ petition to sustain the arguments. Nevertheless, at the request made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, subject to the condition that the three grounds raised in the earlier writ petition cannot be raised once again.