SRIKANT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BIJAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before us challenging the detention order dated 26 5-2005 passed by the District magistrate. Bijapur ordering detention of his brother viz , Sri Shivalingappa S/o Veerappa under the provisions of the Karnataka prevention oi Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12/85)The said detention order has been approved by the Government and the Advisory Board the main grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the said order is the non-compliance of the procedures contemplated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of india and the petitioner therefore contends that the fundamental nght guaranteed to him has been violated. The petitioner has more specifically contended that the detaining authority has not provided the opportunity of making representation and this nght of the detenu to make such a representation has not been made known to the detenu. That apart, the petitioner has further contended that the detaining authority could have issued only one order of detention under Section 3 (1) of the Act. The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority in the present case has passed two orders of detention one m Kannada and another in English and the same is impermissible it is further contended that the two versions of the said order are at variance in its contents and in effect if there were two orders, the detaining authority was required to furnish two sets of documents which were relied upon It is also the contention of the petitioner that the detaining authority has purportedly passed the order in Kannada since the detenu knows Kannada, but, certain of the documents relied upon are in english and have not been translated into kannada and as such the communication is no communication at all In effect, the petitioner has attacked the order of detention mainly on the ground that his fundamental nght guaranteed under Article 22 (5)of the Constitution of India has been violated and therefore, the detention order dated 26-5-2005 which is thereafter confirmed by the Government and the Advisory board, is bad at its inception and the same is to be declared as illegal and void ab imtio.

(2.) IT is to be noticed that the petitioner while raising the above said contention has also averred in the petition that in respect of impugned detention order and confirmation thereof, the petitioner had already approached this Court by tiling a writ petition in W. P (HC) No 56/05 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6-10-2005 and the same has attained finality

(3.) THE respondents herein have filed their objection statement dated 13-12-2005 and at the outset justified the detention order passed against the brother of the petitioner and have also disputed that there has been violation of nght available tc the detenu The respondents have further contended in their objection statement that the petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition in No 56/05 challenging the order of detention and the same had been rightly dismissed by this court. It is further contended that all the grounds urged by the petitioner in this writ petition were very much available to the petitioner even at the time of filing the earlier writ petition It is further specifically contended that the petitioner has not made out any subsequent events and hence the writ petition does not merit any consideration. On the said objections, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the above writ petition