Karnataka High Court
Shanawaz S/O Mohammed Jafar vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 361
Bench: Manjula Chellur, V.Jagannathan
ENVTHE man COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN_GA.LGFf,if'3i
DATED THIS THE 1 {PH DAY OF FEBRUA.R5{;VV.2G.1:G _ '
PRESENT"
THE i-ION'BLE MRS. JUSFECE
THE §~§ON'BLE MR. V JAGAN 1w\;:--*rH'A_N
WP. 1*\is:i)'_.13.5"3)'§{}iV}V"$#{}Vji'€;3)A
BETWEEN :
Shanawaz _.
Aged 32 y€:a1$:--._ 1
8/0 M0haIr13:;e:i~--Jé%iar _ V _ _
No.50, Safu7an"M3;1si01i .. " V
New MadVecna"Co1di:ny; Heble
£;11at1c:;;1--5s: 32.9 _ _-- PETITIONER
(By Sri. s'J,s§%:e§.1i, baegéoceite
for C§ha11_dtT:j.s'h.,gf:1{a1'a K)
~ -»f}ovcn«"zm¢r1t 0fKa1nataka
.' N}.
' _By« S~3-ecreztaly
2 .;"~'{0IIi.f:'I}ۤ)ii1'fII1ۤflt
A .Vie:iha1.1a"$.'3Tudha
E%311ga}c>'1't=:-560 001
...Addi1':iona} Chief Secretary and
V Principal Secretary to
_ "G-'cvernmsnt of Karnataka
E Home Department
T Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-E360 001
By Shri. A. K. M. Nayak
3. Senior Superintendent
Central Prison
Bangalore ... g _
(By Sri. K. M. Natara}, Add}. AG
and Sri. E. Indimsh, AGA)
"3rk'k
This WP(HC) is filed under
Constitution of Entfia praying 10. issue" writ of Ijfabeas Coifpusz, " ,
with 3 direction declaring e:e.._ dete"11'r_jon_ of K11aja'*
Mainuddin Yusufii, by order°_HD_ 5 "QGQQ dated
04.06.2009 (Annexumwffij as void'abigit.io.
This wP(Hc) sewage 4f'oVfl{Z)1><;1ers, this eay,
MANJULA CHELLUR J, made flee j£o:z,owm;_g: _
= eo§DEg *ofE
Vchallenging the order of
<3etcm,:i;ia;:;'dai:edV: HD 5 Sc? 2009 by the 2nd
Iespoodent"'hefei1;.'V--. L'
'i'h¢ "p--et'tion is filed challenging the ordezr of
L' ee*1era1 grounds.
3.«'f?hjeV..e}3etitioner herein is the brother of detenu by
naljie. Khaja Majnuddin Yusufgi and the above said
" éeflzpfion order came to be passed by the 23*' Iesponiient
"'~.;x§d¢r section 3 of the CGFEPOSA Act W (Conservation of
u "Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974) hereinafter reformed to for short 'the Act',
preventing the detemi from acting in any
Smuggling of Indian Currency notes. So fa;:TasV
order being served on the detenu 'i1e
dispute. According to the petitienenfi 'the
refezred to above is bad asiit_i1e.. same is severalvd
facts, which are detailed be1ovV\_z;':'~v._ '
1.
Delay in COI1SigiCIfifzg iiiepiiésentatioix addressed
to me" deiaifihlg ::'auih9fii§V'. Wtiilfi detcnu after
se;~§:'jce:i;~'wi)ii"__£ie£€5I1ti0n ond ergi V V'
isviino 'aiipiicafion of mind by the detaining
ii .,v_8"I1"i'C.iZ1{')i'Z'1j{f:3V,r-.i:4[.,A() that there was no propensity to
eiiga.i;e'i1i. inrejudicial activities as the passpofi:
citfiticie deieiiiii was seized;
i"i'iies._vut;rans1ation of order of detemioxi in Urdu
.ii:2ii;i'giuage is at vaxzizmce with the English versizm of
the order of detention;
The consider the
Advisory Board did not
represeiztatiozi of the detemi seeking assistance of a
lawyer to represent the detezm before the Advisory
Board ;
Non-appiication of mind is reflected in of
ELIE
detention as it is not in oonfonszzity _'§:§'i.t'3I1--«i :."i§'3f,"
and
6. There is no strict compeiiazlcei of
absence of such compliance the oxdeifiof detéjniionifl
is vitiated.
4. A9. against has objection
statement parawise and there is no
violation of and based on the
factsigof -. the all the material evidence
i;(l(3}11diIiiig .Y;}f1tEv? brought on record, the
detaizding autiioifitjr crime to subjective satisfaction and then
of éetention. Therefore, the very Writ
to be Iejected. According to the State, the
repmsentaizion sent by the detenu in Urdu language was
AAconsid~e1ie(i and there is application of raimi to the facts of
'i;h_e_tj)msent petition. Therefore, Writ petition (lest-itzves to be
__ Szlismissed,
5. The point that would arise for our consideratiozi is:
"Whether the petitioner could make out 21 case for writ
in the nature of habeas corpus declaring the detentéon of
Mrlihaja Mainuddin Yusufji as illegal and void ,'
Belay in considerigg the represeputatiogmgf 1
6. In the ease of JAYANARIQKAN: S§1i{U1L»4'V»-..:STATEx
WEST BENGAL --A2R 197:3 sc"----e7. 3
Constitutional Bench, it wast spptopriate V
authority is bound to to thefidetenu to
make a representation has to be
consitiered' authority and the same is
indepentientttnf the by the Advisory Board.
Sigggfleriy, tl1e"ap§§:fopziate authority ie the Government has
V' to 'exe'1'eise"'.Qr base its opinion and judgement on the
by the cietenu before sending the case
along the detenu's representation to the Advisory
7. In the case of KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS
L ___}§"A'§'EL Versus UNION OF ENDIA AND OTHERS - 1995 see
(C311) 6413 it was heid that in addition to his right. to make
representation to State Government or Central Government,
he has a light under Article 22(5) of the oonstitatié-fi';a;ac1
said right has to be inforxned to the deten1;--.*
information of such valuable right vit:i:ite"tfi_e. 'tietentioxi
order. Therefore, the atlthority Voideiiivof
detention has the power toiexsoke Staci) order; vflence, §he ?
cousidezaticm of representatiotfiijade bj%r"'iim:e'(:1ete§:1u by the
said authority as expefiitiotasiyxVué1é3__'»;eoesibie is of utmost
importance. TheIefoze,...if .tft1e1e_V 'tdisgrosal of such
Iepresentatioiz 'the. co1ieeI'ned"* 'au1:§.V'1om'ty, the order of
proceedings.
V8, in inc:¢é'§§,e"tc£_:§fiA.er:'RA N RANA Versus UNION op'
INDIA ANi':>~ o"1"H,f3--RS*--._-"1980 sec. (CI"i.)-450 even 17 days of
""" considering the representation by
government, the Apex Court held that the same
.'xvo;t3;1d the detention order resuming in the detention
order void.
According to the petitioner, the detenu had
aV'%S1t11eI£1it¥;€d representation in Urdu language to the detaining
authority which came to be fozwarded through the third
xes_pencien.t and the same was not eonsigiered by the
detaining authority {5}} the writ petition came to4..,i$;ei:..'_:fi1€:d.
Thorefore, nonwconsideration of the mpmsenfnfion-11.3-¢h'._
vitiates the detention. The 1'€1(j:()I'(3S>">'VU£F()1;l1€1,'1'"'fL'.'\'2"f-'.c;:i:}.. fI1é§t~.;hcfe'~..
was dezxiay at every stage, i.e:., consideration'ofr¢p:wes:é1aj:ation
and when the; decision was.»é-1r;fivedV"at_ émd .thé.';
when it was handed over to iigison. The
authority Without a12_Lfi:;f"'~.3oss"VAV.o§f has to consider the
representations. whicn to stage to
different. au_'tho'§ifies nrould vitiate the
the representation in
Urdu and the same was receiveti on
23.,?.,2o09°;*".re¢;;1p'::"o£ the said Urdu representation it
" fonNa1j€1<:dHfo"""i31f: Screening Comrnittee or Sgaonsoring
V parawise remarks on 27.7.2009. it was
.' 30.07.2009 and the date of rojection of the said
mfixtnentnfion by the respondent is '?.9.2009.
Simultaneously, on 23.7.2009, the representation was made:
to the Advisory Boaxti and the sazm"; was sent to the ' Sponsoring Authority for comments on 25.7.2009. Similarly, the Snonsoring Authority sent the repiy on 30.7.2009, the meeting of the Advisoxy Board was heid on the decision of the Advisory Board was received and the same was communicated to the i
10. It is further contended that each a12t.hority, which a,e_ts the tit stages, is xequired to ooytsider tepifijseiitafion independently and aiiitre 2ttiiiii;11:ri1j4e_t;ie';:t;:1e11tiiopiiiion after appiying its mind to the the concerned authority i_jo_zu1 in the present case, five in Urdu language is dated i=$.'?".-- 20G9VVéeiVt1._iit}f;=>3*,:iii:c)=:;3.111ents of Sponsoxing Atltlixority were _Vsent.4i""*;s;fitl"2ii1. Week to the Detaining Authority.
the authority rejected the representation _ Whether, this would Vitiate the 'p:§c¢ea£n§s'-.:.?
i .. 1;. V Then coming to the delay in Consideriag the sefimsenmfion, though the outer of detention came to be ii§11aeie on 4.6.2009 and a representation was given on iH123.7.2OO9, only on 7.9.2009 the detaining Authority considered the representation and rejected the same. 'There is no explanation why almost 7 weeks time was detaining authority to consieier the detenu. As a matter of fact, after submission e.fV _ opinion of the Advisory B0:-31:} wan' Board gave its opinion in the _mont«i2A 5:. Auguali,.. 2'0€)9 After an inordinate delay froni'V't1:i¥ea»g';ate o'kT fi;'e of the Aévisory Board the V " antliiozity eonsiélered the representation of the detenn. ' 'V'T}1erefoI*'e;.'e.tk11ere is inordinate delay on the pair: "of tne at1i§1o:ifyL"_eoncerned in considering the ' all?! 'The Advocate General contended that_t_§he1e no'V'.pfoced"uIe to eonsifier the repxesentation g}.eAtenn' 'b§,?"V the {ietaining authority as such _' Vrtepiese-vI§£afions--.given to the State and Central Government wefe eonsiéienizd by the concerned authorities. ' .. . V As aheady stated above, it is incumbent upon the xanihoiéty, which passes the detention oreier to consider the representation as the said authority can even revoke the R "detention or-zier passed by it. Therefore, nonwconsideration of the representation in time or inordinate delay in considering such Itpresentation would aiso result in vitiating th;5'»oIder of detention. Therefore, when the authority to act in a particular manner without any delay ' compiiance is not made, the order of detention. »j I A' b > . n Non~agQlication of
14. So far as gmutid ;io1}.§1pp1;Cafi01i§of mind to the fact about the ab§e;§¢¢ $3 the goafli of the detenu to r¢pc{.'§ttv..the the passport was seiztfii, for the petitioner relies 021:
1. 2oo:2 sec» "$62.7 W RAJESH GULATI Versus 'oovaiéw-MSNT oi?' 5201' 011' I)ELH§ AND ANOTHER;
.2(}'{)6 AIR EAR R 13 -- 3'. MUKESH &, (ms. Versus 'V G:§%)3fEii1'§i!sV/:£:i:1N'{' or KARNATAKA 5.-, ORS.; and 3-.__ c.r1._§;ppea; No 2121/2mg (aris§z1g out of S.L.P. (cm) No_;%3201]2009) -~ GIMIK PIOTR Versus STATE OF TAMEL V' r§!\lADU 35 01:23,
15. The gist of the above cases is detention law mu$t be " strictly followed both substantively as well as procedurafly 1} because the object of such law is not to punisbvi_ii3;itV_to prevent certain C§'iII1CS. If the H authority is satisfied that with a View to pmizenti .. from carrying on any of the ofl"en,$ive..aciiv'isi;ies' E3:lt1111§I'a.I£:(i therein, it is necessary to .4_detain_ such 'i"b_e satisfaction of the detaining aiitnoiity isincitiiaisutijective one based on its emotions, i_i5e1iev_es of i'p'gej.iiL~itices. These must be a res} likelihood of the indulge in such activities, thereiiipe' sueh rgie--teni;ion -iizas__i§ecessa1y. When the passlioixiivof question of the detenu likely the purpose of aiieged illegal activities not This would only iiidieate despite fiieu°abA--senvce ofi'iiiis'*;)sssport the detenu could or wouid be "able. to.»eo.n"tinne his activities and such opinion is based on out was a pure speculation. This is nothing but non~.a§pfieafion of mind.
~._16. What needs to be proved is the potentiality of the Alipropensity of the person engaged in futme prejudicial H activities. Even single solitary act can prove the propensity and poterntiality of the detenu to carry on similar activities in 12 future. When once the passport ie IT3t3LiI1C(£H the authorities concerned, the likelihood of the dete:g1u ia Smuggiing activities was efiecizively fo1ec1o,9_e:c"I;--V..VW':t§.'e1); aims.' the Chances of the person to move oiit of ifhe.__Co11;;_1t:jg_ is; curtailed, the chances of detemx engaging in °act5.v"1iieVs*, in the future is bleak. Themfoateon spec:;1at:§g.n his and' liberty of 3 person cannot be ewith.
1?'. Accoxding to once the passport of the deteml eluthority ought to have there was practically no possi}:Jzi1it§i/ of act by the detenu.
_ 18. C3oV111i1V1Vg_ to--._»fl§Le"nVfacts of the present case, the very A detenfiiot1v---is 'based on the facts available as on the V of of detention order. The authority which pa'-Seed ' Vfsvzaid order must have convincing material i:hat there is likelihood of the petitioner induiging " smuggling activities inspite of seizure of the ope-iesport. in other words, such orders cannot be on the 'basis of pure speculation but there has to be some materiai before the authority. In the preeent case, the concerned I3 authority did not have any material indicatingf "die present detemi is having more than one passpoii' name; he is an imposter and ....th_ere ;
continuation of such activities. Therefrnze, diefiiiiieiy non--app£ication of {aid (1 by 'afi.i.:1_e'--.deta1'ini"ing L' propensity to engage in shnilarl-setivities Ehieldetenu. Imgroper translationi oii°*';he'i__oxa;er to Urdu:
19. Their comi1:;g..io'--..theA of argument, according to "w]2:_en_i tii.e"~oider of detention is madezviinr to the deienu, a duty is cast oiiuthe eo:1oe2fried"--.2iii'tb;oIities to get the said order of detention ito iiiiie language known to the detenu.
in "" "§irese13.t case the detem}. was Urdu " and as a matter of fact, translation of English veisioh of detention order was made to {Erdu version 313$}. i;tie«:_sé,1me was served. According to the petitioner, ~ oonipaiison of English version of detenitzion order with Urdu Version there is variance. Therefore, the order of detention is i wxiritiated. Reliance is placed on:
14
1. MR 1980 Sc: 1184 - VIJAY KUMAR gyms;-:§_AV_v@ KOKA v. UNION err £NDIA 65 c>'r1~ieRs''.--fw '' '' '
2. Writ Petitiexzzs {1~iC)8/ 2006 jgx; the'.'f11e'' * High Court);
3. 199-2 Cr1.L.J 28??? -:~3MT.V"e_A'eLABA'i' OF KARNATAKA.
20. W}:1en the ..(i§;«ter1';?ioI; . the grounds of detention are iz1_Qne a1*e. :éit~:V$i_aeiance apart from they being afi version also, such discre§}:.3e1¢:,zAV z:e'm c':' in' Véway of making efleefive Iepresventjatjen. Jimpugned detenticm order. if V53I'if-'l11C€'hI{iadS 'to eoiifiezbeion in the mind of the detenu he sfi{)'u1d....:epresent against the gmuncls in the ' .<V.'i<:te1"1fi_()12. or the satisfacfiioll recorded in the grounds of "de'%entie1e};L:--.§éou1d lead to a situation Where the detenu we'u1.dV"'V1}e 1}.e_ab1e to make an effective representation against A' the. order of detention. If the translaied version in Urdu and A' English version ef the grounds of detention are at "Variance, it would come in the way of effective representation, detention deserves to be set aeide.
121. in the present case, The oréer of (1'et€::1.tich;1"'»i.s at Annexure~A, which reads as Imder: V "GOVERNMENT OF' mRNATA}§_A "-..VV. F" % No. H1} 5 SCI? 2009 :43;-:1ata:';§;%{'C:¢sveVmmer1«i.:segy¢t5;§iai-
"':.\'idjl'1:¢s;r1a Saudha _ Bangalcre,' -- .Date::Ib:V . 260$) 0RDER"~../.:r Whemas, 1, A, M.'.Ae1§Iaye1r,VV""§z§;S, Adaieenm Chief Secretary to Govexnmeiit' _§'§()"iI§iC§';~.D€3]§.i0Vi:1):1Vi':i'm¥T}>I?;€1Ilf;, Government of Karnatafxa specially e331p.o:veI'e(i..bL Li.i1de'I*-- S°ec 3(1) of the Conservation; Foreign Prevention of Smuggi:fi1 Vg"1§eV{iviti£{e'Aet,.V.:'.'i9'7<¥v({f',entra1 Act 52 of 9974-) am saf:isfi 'ee1 ' " v.#;r;;:;: to preventing Shri. Khaja Mainuddiq ' acting in any manner fmm smuggling <31' .1ndiaj1 eéirfency notes, it is necessary to make ti1i%:j"S;*a-1?,c3js*c*i.t1goIr'1'e':-V' ---------- 2". V' therefozne, in exercise 0f the powers 'go::r¢nwed--"~"ejj_5§ Section. 3(1) and Section 3(:)(i) of the Ceiisezizatiéit of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of % xs;;uugg3.:hg Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), : hgieby direct that said Shri. Klzaja Mainlzcidin Yusufii be and kept in custody in Central Prison, Bangalore, " "am. the gmlznds annexed herewith.
(A.K.M. NAYAK) Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department.
To Shri Khaja Mainuddin Yustzfji, ~,_"
Holder of indian Passport No.G855255 1 / A O457"1,04::fl No:50, Safwan Mansion, , = ' New Madeena Colony, Heble " ' Bhatkai, North Canara 581 320 And also at the following addV'-**ess_ Shri. Khaja Majnuddill Yusuiji _ ' Holder of India PaSS§3OFi.I\I(}.G7855f2551"}'-.A 045710'-?A"
No:354, Yusufli House, ~_ .- V, 3"! Cross, Madeena Colony," _ Bhatkal, North Canara 58_1"32{)__ * [Through on . The Inspector V " ':_nera:i__ Police, Economic Offences, Bangalore. L = " .A . The Additional'DiIeCtet,V'I3Li1'eetorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal 'Unit, "Rajazajeshwaxi Kmpa", No.503, 3"
'A'..':Mai:1, OM85' 'Layout, Bangaioxe-56{} 043 -- (Denies of the oxide}: C~i'oL1n:1_s of Detention, Relieé upon documents aiso to ' be":";.erveei'eon the detenu through the COD, Bangalore in the the detenu.
. The'*Depnt'jvf Secretary (COFEPGSA), Government of India, Minis11f§'..'Fiz1anCe, Deparinneni of Revenue, 6&1 Floor, '13' Wing, J:-3npat11 Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. The Advijifiionai Director General of Police, Prisons, Sheshadri .. Road, Qangelore.
I .,,'FheH€hief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangaiore. _V . The Competent Authority, SAFEMFGPA, No.64] 1, C}. N. % Chetty Road, '1'. Nagar, (3hennai--60O 017."
22. The reading of the above order clearly inéicates that such detention ortier was made with a View to prevent E7 the detenu from smuggling of Indian currency notes' any manner. Therefore, the detention order was the powers conferxed under section 3(§) and 3(1) When we look at the translation of ftnnextlte A 2, viz. the Uniu version is at A--
Urdu version is at Amtmextxre the Urrhi v§=,:s:5;1"'has" used' the word 'taskari'. In other wo1t1siVL_the"-true traiislaéion of the Urdu version inciicatesi .e:t'_(}.v:'})i't3Vf:I1'{ the cietenu from steaiing Indian «,:9iftlE:'£f:I1ti0X1 came to be 3(13f¢$f the Act. There is lot of 'between' activities i.e., smuggling and stealing. iiit'VisVV11o¥:$eodiy'v?sVoéise that the detenu indulged in the of stealmg ilntiisn currency sad if that is so, the very _i Vttie Act would not arise. Therefore, unless the detenu served with a proper and meaningfifl order or true veision of the detention order, there is no question of idetenu understanding what exactly was the order passed its-gsinst him to prevent him from what activities. Therefore, the present case apparently the translated order imports entirely difierent meaning from the original deteiitiiiii-iériier, which is at Annexure--A. & i .
gfit to seek assistance ofIa"'Lawve1': 2
23. Then coming to the cietenu had right to seek ass'isia£1c_:e V.laWyer.'~ii According to the pefitipner, .<§f'assisf:iance of a lawyer to represent his Lfiefbre the Advisoxy Board would to him such zepresentatioinéé mzijéei Board had only penniféeii :ei*.Vii1ext~iiie'ziid of the detenu to present the cai;-se ionibei1aii'.ei'v«tiie.ijetenu. As a matter of fact, an oppoljtunity. WasV;)iTeA1%ed'~~§<i) the éetenu to submit his case by t1§:e'i'inext~f:rie13diivi1:3---«is a nonwiawyer. Therefore, it is not a V is denial of opportunigz to 'ihe detenu. Even is no provision in the State of iianiataka to giive ..E1i§'.?-iisiiiallcti of a lawyer to represent the detenu before 2 AA Board iike in Bombay and Chennai. Therefore, so AA"§fs1"ia1s this ground of the petitioner we have to hold the same H in the negative.
20 words used in the order of detention should indicanfflie authority passing the order was sure in his miiid iiized precise grounds for detainin' g the _c_1e.te_1_1u I1e'_'eiiou1d not "
mechanically or looseiy use the 'évordlsef the se'c-:.io.:[1;-.__ "fI1'a:1_Le order of detention must speak"-out the neeesaiéélrjri *.*zord_sfs W133: V > such order was made and it not give.Scopef§for wrong irlterpretation.
26. According toA$:he._ieareed for the petitioner, a reading of._.:vseeiioVn.v.;3--{1)€;_oi' (dearly indicates, what should contain when such Vi:?11r1J'c;.miVeI' of section 3(1) with other sutA3_-sections ciear that it contains two parts, first ionpIei'ieI1%~~~«a person from acting in any manner V 'rhe conservation or augmentation of foreign second part refers to smuggling of goods, die smuggling of goods, or engaging in traiisporting " «concealing or keeping smuggled goods, etc. 'b A 2?'. In the present case, the authority concerned was H imzending to make an order of detemion to prevent the } deierm from smuggling Endian currency. But when we look at the wonis in the order of detention, the words 11SCL31.§3f4TfhC detaining authofity refers to first portion of . reference to foreign exchange and. next' '?.§?iI;1.1u reference to sznuggling of indian cune:;'cy.:' Thexeforegtiiwhene the detention order is macie not even understand what exactly the otnieirt veanted to make. Therefore, such e_1"ei:5't. in the order of deizention.
28. The :deeé'entt;io'Ii .i_n'-Kquesfion at Annexure-A refers to to conservation and augmentation and not smuggling of Indian c11IIe:1cj,r.v In ot.¥1efvW0rds, whenever a detention order ii'; the deten't1"'n1ust be able te understemd for what Vdetention oréer was made and what act he is doing. In the absence of making clear why exactlyttthe detention order is made against the detenu, t 57 agfipgmly it would lead to confusion in the minci of the Vdetenu Whether the detention was in View of preventing him 'from acting in any malmer prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange or with a View to prevent him from smuggling Indian currency. Therefore, the order of, _detex_1tion*~:ii1 iiqtieetionii definiteiy is éefective.
29. It is well settled<tha_t proeeiiure oeioiitemglziteei particular manner, the be} in strict compliance of iaw to act in strict Conformation of the detaining authority lzasi to the facts of the present was the compiaint sneiliwfilvetention order has to be made to doing What, it would not be a proper ortierof accordance with Law.
in t}:1ei'pre*;~3ent case as noteé above, translation of Li t1ie'=detentionT'order itself was at variance when the Urdu ivefsion given to the detenu which is the language of the detenlxvo; Elven the English order of detention does not it ~ ineiieate whether the detaining authority was preventing the tietenu from doing an act with regard to the first portion of it Wsseetion 3 (1) or seconti portion of section 3 (1). Therefore, there is absolutely no application of mind whatsoever to the facts on xecord and the detaining authority? did moi' '*.k1}0W What order it was making.
31. The entire ciiscussion. made above that apart from inordinate de1a;fJiAii:1"';2a&_s'sing HC%f detention, there was no app3ici3;tioi3._ .of a propensity of the repetitioii ahetivitiesi and so also the actua}.worcis"'u--Sed. iii} the o1'der.vj)1eventing the detenu from carryiiiigi o'uti'su:é21i ae*EiVi3;ie's,
32. Haviiig t1ie.,i5tbVox~2 ciiéicussion, so far as the Vwe are of the ogainion that the deiention. 4.6.2009 is bad in law and is reqle d toibevvset «.ACcoiiii;i1gi§%, the petition is ailowed. The detention 'ii.-':ife.r41e'«%l:§_§f3--..i330()9 is set aside. We dixect the dctenu to be .i:~:eiti"iat }ibei:';;;:'.ibrthWith if not required in my other case. 5% I11d§''5 TzE€§?§ Sak/1 10210