FARIDA Vs. AJAI KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006 petitioner Chandrahas in WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006 is seeking a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the detention of one Narasimha son of Rangappa by order dated 3. 6. 2006 in No. Mag (1)CR/58/2005-06 passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and the order of detention in Kannada dated 3. 6. 2006 bearing No. Mag (1)CR/2005-06 as illegal and void ab initio.

(2.) PETITIONER Chandrahas is the brother of Narasimha son of Rangappa, the detenu. Detenu is detained in Central Prison, Gulbarga pursuant to an order of detention purported to have been passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District 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 (for short, 'goondas Act' ). Order of detention issued in Kannada is filed at Annexure-B to the petition. According to the petitioner, grounds of detention were furnished both in Kannada and English in terms of Annexures C and D. He would say that the detenu was furnished with relied upon documents in a spiral bound book of 127 pages. Order of detention is passed under Section 3 of the Goonda Act and the same requires to be approved by the second respondent. Approval order is not passed according to the petitioner. Petitioner in the grounds would say that the first respondent is a person empowered to exercise powers under Section 3 (1) of the Goonda Act. He would further say that his order is required to be approved by the second respondent within 12 days. Approval order was neither issued nor was it served on the detenu. It is further stated that two orders were issued, one in English and another in Kannada. Two orders could not have been issued by the Government. This has created confusion in the mind of the detenu. It is contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Goonda Act and is in violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, two orders do not say that one is translation of the other. The index to the compilation of the document furnished also refer to the existence of two orders of detention. Detenu has a right to make an effective representation and that right is rendered impossible on the facts of this case. Petitioner also says that there are violations of not only under Article 22 of the Constitution but also the statutory provisions of Goonda Act.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, order of detention is also vitiated for the reason that the bail application and the detailed order granting bail in various cases relied upon which was required to have been necessarily placed and considered by the Detaining Authority has not been so done. Failure to place those materials before the detaining authority and failure to consider the same would render the order of detention unconstitutional in addition to being illegal. Petitioner in these circumstances seeks for a writ in the nature of declaration.