Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma W/O Late Hanumanthaiah vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 31 May, 2011
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
Ix.)
3. Senior Superimendeni,
Ce11{:a1Prise11 .
Gu1b:a1rg;a. *..Reependen§:aV _T
{By Sri.E.S.Indiresh, HCQP}
This petition is fiied under firtieles es? the
C<:3:1st.eiiu:ion of India to declare th;e"de':enti':)n _.e;~f_ Srgnivas
Betthanagere Seenae S/0 late Hé3,nL:;11arith~21ié1.1i1,"~-by"=-:::>rcier
Nol\='£AG(4}Mise:CR/285/2010»1 I éi.a1e--C_1 A' 21.'§{}.;20},{)" ._
Z§nnexL1re-A {Arme:>:ure~B: trar:sla:io11"mi:'rer e;**"An,nexu:fe«A} _
passed by the respondent no. L _iHeg9£E and.j«'e§d"abi1':i'iie.
This petition ecmlixzg '*--f0"r--~.._ heareing. £13118 day'
NANANDA, 3., made Eh€.fQHO\§'i1'}gi-h"' --.
The {me detenue namely
Srinivaezgg @'*~B'efl<2;5§nag_ereV"Seerga who has been detained
under:':__Se._c;fiQV::"'.3'._V ~' Karnataka Prevention of
Dangereu':~:__ Aeti'§?if:i:e ~*Beot1eggers, Drug Offenders.
Gambierfse C}§i)er1 <jVIas,': Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Act, 198.3 (hereinafter referred to as
t'Aet"--).e' to the orders passed by the first
L' resé:;t:dveVr}.t/"viz: MAG {4} MISC:CR/285/2010-H dated
"..fl.?fi§e1.{).2@1O market': as Annexure~'A'.
, :- W 1 "'
2. The order of detention was served on the
deterxue who has been in Dist1'ic:t: Prison, €3u}':_>a1fgaaT'i:1
judicial CU.St{}d}? in relation to various easee:..reg'iefere'&--.T' ~
and pending against him. The eIet:a:1f_1:ng_~ aftee '
narrating several grounds, xvhieh vézbuld
the activities of the detenue'Tif"r.e1eaeed: en be * L'
endangerous te society', hasvAV_na:Vad.e"t1}e aéf.€fiiIQ£3, order.
Thereafter, the orderVe'f :efeAte:1§}e%.1u.§§*ae,AV:a»ppr0ved by the
State C}0x*erf1VTI."-§>;f13'*_ <7§'%5" ;"1'"£1e case was
referred to Advisory Board
submitted' On 01.01.2011?
the Staéie the Order of detention
of detenue a gae-_1fie:_i" months.
e[e«tenue had made a representation dated
";73S;'-}__O..A2O.1"C: t--a:'§»E'r;e detaining autheriiy {firet reepezziéenii
The'"'~-- re_;5fevSentatio:1 was ferwarded by the first
.:fee.}7eneIef1t to the seeend reepe:1dent»~Siate Government
(3%: 28301.20} 1 The eeeend reepeneieni. rejeeteci the
1*epreseniation 0:1 31.01.2011. In the _
detenue had {fled the imstant p€i,iti§I1 on 1-{3;~1--
3. I have heard Sri.Kirar: J:;§;'éi§_, Iear:_;_e€i»vC'31i:1Sei"~
for petitioner and Sri.E.S.E--x;'ei~i.reshV; ._1ea:rie<:i*--:v"e{}1;1i"1sei ''
appearing for respondexjts Ne-.'E
The submiS3ions'..n3.§';e1Ve counsel for
fietitioner
i) The cieVte_r;u1ev'was-._Vga1reg;c}§z'if: __prison as an under
t1jia1._ _ to various cases
rkagistexfeeév against him. The detaining
aeftharity'héi;é:_:'1:e»e'i~~ awareness while passing
the efder 'v~;iet-e'ri'£ie11 against the detenue whe is
~ '5;a1re3,dy in" prggen.
ii} eE_e'tenue was not informed of his right 1:0 make
in 21 communicable form by the
authority and the eommunieatien
" edi:.:éie.ed that the erder of det,enti<:>r:z as ts the
V ' right; 05 def/enue to make his repreeentatien is
~ "<é€;r1fu$ir:gg.
iii}
iv}
There is irzordinate delay in e0nside1'ing"'-.._'ti1e
representation made by the de_i;efm5e~ 5§:*»_»_:1
28.10.2010.
The cietenxxe had made... ,:fepresef1t:;ié;::i%5ti .e1?:,_
28.10.2010 to the second i=.espe.n;:ief:§ .{.h:ti*o:1gTr3___thse.'
first respondent as pezfthe 'i-:1f'e.rn1atiQ'3.::e0hvey;ed x
to the determe in the defe-:1tiofi '0rder:"_b§':VVfV1ie first
respondent. The, said yefifesenntatiefi' --u;as..:§rejeeted
by the second VrespQr;de;§»1tv:;/'éfitéfiésGovernment on
31,o1.2o11. whieh_ T'is_ ;§1§r.{:ose't~..%;::"%:i¢:_7a period of 3
months, « "_-.
In 's.1.;bfnissions, the learned
csu1'1se71_ fer'peti"Lé'§)nLe;t_has"relied on various decisions.
:,§;_ 1eeirn ed . Counse1 appearing for the
"A:eVs'pe:héi'enf's« XVO1fla;W};V11SiVif'§g' the order of detention by
-_.If:e;1{i11g"f:}1i<:wif1g submissions:
Z'f1.e . detair1ing' authority has stated several
A gfsunds that the detenue who is in prison in
. etsnnecfisn
with several eases registered and
perzding against him has been €iif€}f1§iHU,i1"i§ his
6
iiiegai activities. In other wards the feeiers pf jail
have met deterred the cieienue from COI1'[,iI1Igi'iTig'.'{iiS
illegal activities pre}u::iiei3.I to the n3ai11~':etiAa:f_:ee €55
pubiie ermier. The detaining autherityffiee
to VZ:1}'iOLiS criminal ease»:-3« .._;:nd.' ifi's'ieg1e'e.s::iA. in
partieuiar, eriminal ease$'»,reg;:i€;fei*ee;i
cietenue while he wag in prison. '}fhiereVi'e.re,:'; the
detaining authority h2§.'s:s.:rS--ifi0xvr1 Vie the
fact that detentien orderjipaeeed e{g'ainst'3detenue
when he was air'ee;dy connection with
several cases regis::e:eci'V__é:§_1q against him.
As the that in case if
the 'e_QIh_e'iez.1i'after obtaining baii,
heV_Hw0':;1ti 71~.:j,c_:»1ii1;:'i_ri'u_.eV" hiS___i11é:gal activities and his
;,resene'e.--ve_ut:sid*eV the mi} weuiii be prejudicial to
m'ainienane'e':_ief pi order.
'"i'h.ere is» pregiiiatie ruie fixing the peried for
' :'ee'i:1si'e:i.eraiieii "" ef representation, If there are
'reasons for the delay in eensidering the
*.i'reei:ee.ei3=ieti0n, the deteiitieii order eannet be
qtiéisiréd. The éetaining aiiiheriiy in miequiveeai
iezizifie has informed the deienue abeut. his right is
V I'€pi'€S€f1f2}{iOf1, in fattiz en :28. iO.2€}iG ihe
cieieiiue i1.:/xi made 21 F€§i"€S€I1§é1iii{)i1, Thereferei
the detenue Cf;iI11"10'i be heard :50 say thatevV.P;.§;":gas
120:: made known of hie right
1'epre$eniatien.
6. The law is well set'f§ed"eA:;;:f
cietem"/ion can be passed agé.i1*:§t 21 person \3{hQeii8.v;111:eady--. }
in detention as an under~:§i_éi}.._p:::§soner--..At the same
time, the law require=:~fthe:Ldetgaifzifig"eaiutherity should
Show awareness. of this fact'
7. Cifx "C'*<5';3S 'Ide};?ei§ipr1; we find that the
detainihg (ind-er Séveieal grounds has stated
" m ' ~ ' +: 4". .f"-:1 1.1/\
that the <ii_etenuee«1nv.sp=,,.e... of his éietenuon 1;... Jan 11}.
eonneeti0f1"«.withth.e "Cages registered and pending
ieKVop--e2'a:ing from the jail and his illegal
::ie{_i*v1:ie§ Vafe..e:ee§.r1:i:1uing unabatted. Therefore the first
si3bfi1isei<:x';5:i__vilmade by the iearned eounsei for
pefifi::>rfie;}*/detenue Carma': be aeeepted.
V he order of deiientiorg was communicated to the
"c;3eie'fiue beéh £3: 'Jf31'I}2;'1i?;3L'£1I' {K2mn21<ia} iangzxzgge and
9
"En habeas; Corpus procteedings. the "f:€:>t,1rt_: K
have regard to the legality er etthemfiee (if:'t'1*:'ef§1etetitio:?:_V
aft the time of the return and net as-tit?}:1'refe'ref:ee
institution of the proeeedingej'
Therefore, the submiss*i.Q.f:t,0fiea1fi1e.d:"_:e{5'2v1rié'e1 for
respondent Cannot be __aCeeptedV§:'»».__
10. It is not in be disputed
that detenue§~vt1:tet_'matie get to the second
respendenifi :t}'1%A'*~.,fi1;t3t"'»,e,}\3gpo11dent (detaining
autho:fit§V)W not indispute that
the firstre«ep0r:f\:te:f1te_'het{i"received the representatier: en
O2.11.2Gu1'O__." ,VTh.e*.see<jz1d respondent to Whom the
1"ep}fesen.t,ati0fi ~ was addreseed received the
on 28.01.2011 and rejected. the
by its order dated 3t.G1.201L
The4i"ef<:é-ife,"£i}1e Crucial paint for ear eonsidet*at:<:>n is:
V' v._b_ :."x?'«'hett1e:' the detaining aut.h::>rity havmgs; received
the representatien an 82.11.2910 was; gustifieé in
retai:1i11g the represer1t,atrien till 28.01.2011 ie,,~,ei}.rr:est
for 21 period of 90 etaye'?
11, In order £0 explain this d€1.':'t}x2
eeunse} 21ppeari11g for the 1*es:per1'den_t:s fiieéi-wV«'the
atfftdavit of the first resporxdent, t4t3_er.eAtevarit_tA
of the same would read 'H _ p
" 3. E respectfully e1;1btnvit"'thatp am ttie 1*'
respondent I further
submit that herein --
Superir1'ter;ߤient;_' Cer1t'ra1.Gu1barga. has
Sent; 28.10.2010 by
tpheppv my office has
1reeei'_vet';._'v they _' repreeentatten on
the aforesaid period,
pbettveenv to OL12.2010, pursuant
to' the "'--.¢5i«e_f{_ernment Circular relating to
cie:}tir1iitatipon of constituency in respect of the
' §?,:t:;eha}rath and Taluka Panchayath
eeneequent te the fOY1'11EifiO1f1 of
the entire Staff has been a1I0eat.ed in
reepeet ef the aforesaid rr1atter and thereafter
frem eeteeme sq: e5,e:.2e11, the Calendar
est" everzte fer purpeee ef <%er1d::<tt/Eng; Zilia
authoriiy/first respesndent, was net awaxfe'"Ci?-..__E;i,~s
statutory duties and ebligatiorxe under _f~1':e _:':E'ia1';d:afa}:§"
Prevention of dangerous aetivitiee of-.BAé0tieg£?§§:fs',"»Elfugga.A
offenders, Gambiers, G00-s:1dasV;'A_V "En1me:3re;} Treffie
Offenders and Sieum~g1*abbe1;e'e*..é§et,_ 3 of
the said Act empoxvere"vthe~--authevfit§ to pass
an order of detentioreto be stated
therein. The;"'of{i:e'i* effective from
the momerif eletaining authority. The
detaini;1g*'v3,{ii1§;«:>;i veteituteriiy empowered to
pass grounds as a preventive
measure'; V "
The' 'E-aw ____ "is well settled that 2: person
law, which enables the detention Qf
e';.;€:he'pere{m'fe'f Valid grounds as a prevezmve measure
V5322 (5) Q? the Constitution of indie.
{he éédeteeenzje has eenstiiutional safeguards in terms of
f\' :22
4 ' W
"'1
E 3
1%. The detenue shoulei be infc>m1ed of his 1'ig?fht to
make representation. In case if the 1'epreser1ii_é{f:i.<5r;[
made by the detenue, it shall be eezlsideziedi "
re21so:1ab1e time.
15. The learned counsel_ for 1'espendeni--:s has r€;:Ii"ed
on several decisions to _tVhaf :'f§tHere is
delay in considering eaeenot be a
ground to eguaslflghe iv
16. 'I'}1'e?"':Ieéi}}':?;i'eci.vgjeéoigrieei:_"feif §*espendent has relied
on the in AIR 1990
SC I Anarzd v. {mien of
India gig;%othe:§1V§;:§d:fgég (2) All India Criminal Law
RepQ;rte;f..(in.Vti:e_ ée1se ofJasbir Singh :2. Lt. Governor,
I'fV§:'i_;zA.e:}:ieC:£si0ne reperted in AIR 2990 SC E?5 (in
'r__the cciseof Macianial Anand 1:. Unfion ef India and
the Supreme Court hag heid :
14
"D€':aini:3g auiharity has explainecy
éifiléi}? in dispesal sf 1'€p.{'€S€f}fS,fi8fi --=~
Eaches or :1€g1ig&r:<::€ on pari of detainigg.'
cziher auishczrities mrzcarnsd in dea1in§,__:"w*i €£{1VV
represeniatitm. Qrder <31' deienifiéan
renciereéi invalid or: the grz3:'a;:1c%jsf :dé1:?{y;." "
In a. decision repofisfi'-»..V_:n Iiidia"
Criminal Law Reporteflin t Iw 16:339.. Llof Jésbirfiingh v.
Lt. Governor, Delhi Court has
heid :
unexplainad delay in
d1sp0si:1gVjQt"~th€ depend upon the
facts ef "each case. The right to
make at-Réprése:i'§§i:i_{$r}is.un«:i.oubtediy a constitutional
right of such a representation should
be C<;§;1Siiiered.'a;e. egipeditiously as passibla But What 11$
'expedition will depend upon the facts of
_g:fi:.:h V<::%$€.f"' V
18;. .11*:" 3:1":€ case an hané, the représentatian W33
,rer:;:~:§::ed"1§»y £116 dgiairzing autharity 33:: 32.11.2616. The
'éiétéiéiing authariiy in the affidazrié fiisaé by him wguki
£73'
3'
9 gm
13
say the rep1'eseni'atior1 dated 28.10.2010 was broughi to
his :'1<:rti<:e on 28,01,201}, thereafter, he f'emVah:'def<§.._Ti,he
same to second :*esp<:3:1deI1t/State Gox/'er:1me';'1?:. '.:».
19. The first respondent
District Magistrate/Detaining Au'£,--h_§r--:ty h.s;s.st%mi;t<5:~;
responsibility while dealinghhiifiigh thevhfeehfesehhfiation of
instant kind. T he wasvhheeeare that
he had made the deteAnt_ien detenue and
informed to make a
representa'€ti.;;»Vnfl"_"fie authority. In the
jaehtherity eaxiiiet be heard
to say thaatéhtheh ref)fe'sefx--t§§itien made by the detenue on
28.1'Q;20s10notieed by him and his sub'
kept it elsewhere and brought it to his
hQfi.?{9 "<;:§ii§? «:?i'5t"".28.01,2{E1}. These averments wouici
anxffigz e:"£.efn'e"hstra£e that the first responcieht:/detaining
~.'.;?£Li{Th,Qf££yy..haS forgotten his duties and betrayed lack of
_ f'es'§:>:§fisibii§{/y in fiealing with the ease ef i:1s:a:11: nature
16
which involves not only liberty of the detenue_'bt1't.¢_:'al_s0
the intereet of seeiety at large.
20. As already stated, ['lwe'"'c3Q7,
acceptable reasens for the fietain':ng'.;1uthe$r:ty=te
the representation for 2: of tn-:~._é_e'-- tnore
particularly when the" ~c3letai:1in§nl_:enltheritirl lwE{S.v'é,yxvare at
the detention order rnetde eonimuxlication
made to the tietenugew to make a
representa§;tie'n., tflhatt there was in~
ordinate...d_ela$é' eoneitilerl11§,.VVthle representation made
by delay occurred due to the
irresponsible gvaets tli1e'_.»evtletaini11g authority. In View of
theéfiloizel we that the order of detention has to be
:'q:1_e's}1edAA <fl:"1eVtl0 the delay caused in eonsidering the
re'§$1_'esent'atttinnl'fnade by eletenuel
.. f V. 2i1.ét:;:..,.l
2;; The matter can be eensidered from other angle
Section 10 of the Karnataka
dangereus activities of Bootieggerse Drugeffeij;e§,e:*:~:__,_"' _
Gambiers, Goondae, Immerse} Traffic ._a§id
Slumegrabbers Aet, 1985 reads 221$ u:*i:ier';--,»» .3
"10. Reference to Advisoriy B:e'{>_Aa14d.--1'*.I_ii
where a Cieterziion order hasvbeen meuie' Llndfif"€.f:1iS_§XC§§ the
State C}0vernmem; shah, wit1'1ir1""Ve'E3fV1Ti'ee weeiwifi 'f1"ei-1:1 '(:36 date of
detention of a person.}1nder""sth.e:'--efder, fiIa::e before the
Advisory Board constitflied seC'£;i::sr1 9e the
grounds en which the made and 'he
represematiory, affected by the
order, and {he tjreier 115;; been made by an
officer, alse under subsection {3}
of 'V
" 4:111 "on hand, though the
represenieteidga, " detenue on 28.10.2010 was
very-g-.:.n::ieh ais;éti1.e;§§_1_e. with the detaining authority on
representation was not sent to the
'?:t1x*.ieo"fyV1:3Qa::":i'; Thus, there is vioiatioen of Section 10 of
tehe'."'A<:'i:--}A "Eh this View of the matter alsog the ereier of
"deV1ientier:1 Cannot, be sustained. Therefore, We quash the
"<ie1;;e;;i€iene ozder. L e
23. In the r<~3sL1I'€, W6 passs the foliowingi
ORDER
The Writ psitition 13 allowed, p The grder of deiention as 'perfA::'n€;:<u1*e?":¥ 2L10.20}O macié by the fifs'&.._;*esfi0n€i{3nt the order of czenfirmatiorg by the second respondent»St2ité GOvef{.t1;:I1é§:ji aiijquashed. %A-%j" S&j£ 33333 §§j$ EEDGE