Karnataka High Court
Smt R Ramya vs Commissioner Of Police on 26 August, 2022
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION (HC) No.51/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. RAMYA
W/O. RAVI .M @ RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.9/2/78, 2ND FLOOR,
MANGANAHALLI,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
NEAR PAVITHRA SCHOOL, ULLALU,
ULLALU UPANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 056. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY,
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY KAMAL PANT.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SECRETARY,
HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
BANGALORE - 560 060. ... RESPONDENTS
-2-
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W SRI THEJESH P. HCGP FOR R-1
TO R-3)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN SHE
PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
DECLARE THE DETENTION OF SHRI RAVIKUMAR @ CYCLE RAVI
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, BY ORDER NO.10/CRM(4)/DTN/2022
DATED 27.04.2022 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
BY ORDER NO.HD 284 SST 2022 DATED 07.05.2022
(ANNEXURE-E) AS ILLEGAL AD VOID ABINITIO.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, who is wife of Sri. Ravikumar @ Cycle Ravi - detune has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order passed by respondent No.1 dated 27.04.2022 under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to 'the Goonda Act' for short) vide Annexure-A and confirmation order dated 07.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E. -3-
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the detune has been detained in Central Jail, Bengaluru in pursuance of the detention order passed by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act as per Annexure-A. It is further stated that as contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the detune has purportedly been furnished the grounds of detention and the materials relied upon by the Detention Authority are in three bound volumes and the same was required to be forwarded along with grounds, on which the order was made, and the documents relied upon and the report of respondent No.1 and same has to be approved within twelve days of issuance of Detention Order as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act. Respondent No.2 has approved the detention order on 07.05.2022 as per Annexure-E. Respondent No.2 has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.1 in respect of detention order on 14.06.2022. -4-
3. It is further case of the petitioner that the detune had studied in Kannada Medium upto 7th Standard and he does not know English language. Consequently, the detune ought to have been furnished the translation of English documents. Failing to provide the Kannada translation of the English documents in bound volumes, purported to be relied upon documents, has constituted non-communication of the grounds of detention, and some of the documents are not legible. Therefore, the petitioner sought to allow the writ petition.
4. The State Government-respondent has filed objections and stated that the detune had studied upto 7th standard and he was found of reading Kannada and English language and it is false to state that the detune did not know English and further stated that failure to provide Kannada translation of English documents is not a ground to quash the detention order as the respondents had furnished all -5- the documents in Kannada as well as English language. It is further stated that respondent No.1 after considering the entire material on record has passed the detention order and the same has been approved by respondent No.2. It is stated that the Detention Order at Annexure-A clearly indicates that the detune has a right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority as well as Government of Karnataka independently and it is false to state that the Detaining Authority has failed to inform the detune that he has a right to make representation and there is no non-compliance of Constitutional requirements guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
5. It is further stated that the order of detention does not vitiate the detune, who was in judicial custody on the date of passing the order and further that the detune has made an application for bail and was liable to be released on bail or there is a -6- chance to release on bail that cannot be a ground for quashing the detention order. Further, it is stated that the detune has studied upto 7th standard and he knows to read and write English along with Kannada language and he does not know the English language is not a ground to quash the detention order passed by respondent No.1 and same was approved by respondent No.2. It is further contended that the detune has joined with bad elements and indulged in various criminal activities such as murder, robbery, riots, attempt to murder and assault cases since 1997. He has committed various crimes and also involved in illegal and anti-social activities. The detenue has obtained bail in the criminal cases, after being releasing from the jail, he continued involving in various criminal activities, thereby, it was not possible to prevent him under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. He further contended that detune is a habitual offender, who is involved in attempt to murder, extortion, assault, ransom and other grievous cases -7- and about 30 cases, there are 8 cases are pending for trial and one case is still under investigation. The detune was informed about the statutory right to make representation to the detaining authority and the Government independently and thereby, there is no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the documents produced to the detune are in accordance with law and thereby, the petitioner has not made out absolute grounds in the present petition and sought to dismiss the petition. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri. K. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the detention order passed by respondent No.1, approved by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained as some of the documents in three bound volumes furnished by the -8- Detaining Authority are in English language, some of them are in Kannada language and some pages in bound volumes are illegible i.e., page Nos.8, 30 to 42, 66 to 70, 79 to 81, 144 to 190, 283, 284, 292 to 298, 306, 381 to 743, 754 to 759, 803, 832 to 858, 912, 937 to 1012, 1052, 1053, 1068, 1099, 1072, 1074, 1085 to 1098 and 1030 to 1051. Consequently, furnishing of illegible documents constituted non- communication and violation of first facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended the Detaining Authority after perusal of entire material on record derived subjective satisfaction and recorded in page 2 of the English version grounds of detention to the effect that "despite you were released on bail you have violated the bail conditions and thereby disobeyed the orders of the Hon'ble Courts." The same clearly indicates that the Detaining Authority has taken a view that the detune has made an application for bail and bail has been granted and the conditions of the bail was -9- violated and that is not a ground to exercise the power under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act.
8. He further contended that the order of the Detention is vitiated inasmuch as the Sponsoring Authority has not placed for the consideration of the Detaining Authority the bail applications with respect to the incidents referred to in Grounds of detention. For failure to place the bail applications and consequent non-placement, non-consideration and non-furnishing of the bail applications cannot be a ground to quash the detention order same is not sustainable and sought to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, Sri. S.V. Hegde, learned SPP-II while reiterating the objections has contended that respondent No.1 after considering the entire material on record and in the interest of society, has passed the Detention Order under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act and the same was approved by the State
- 10 -
Government. It is further contended that the detune was a rowdy element has frequently involved in the number of criminal acts and cases, he was also released on bail in other criminal activities and the act of the detune has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of general public and the detune has threatened and intimidated public and has been a bane to the society. Thereby, the impugned detention order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper and no lenience can be shown to the detune as he involved in so many criminal activities.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration in the present writ petition is:
"Whether the detention order passed by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act dated 27.04.2022 vide Annexure-A and confirmed by respondent No.2-State Government dated 07.05.2022 as per Annexure-E are justified?"
- 11 -
11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 passed the Detention Order on 27.04.2022 under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act, the same was communicated to the detune on 28.04.2022. The Detention Order has been received by the State Government on 29.04.2022 and the same has been approved by the State Government on 07.05.2022. The communication of the approval order was made to the detune on 08.05.2022. Thereafter, the detune has made the representation to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board holds a meeting on 08.06.2022 and submitted a report to the Government on 09.06.2022. On 14.06.2022, the Confirmation Order was passed by the State and same was communicated to the detune on 14.06.2022 and
- 12 -
subsequently, on 20.07.2022, issued an endorsement for rejection of the representation of the detune and same was communicated to the detune on 18.07.2022.
13. Though several grounds are urged by learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the detention order, one of the solitary ground urged by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the present writ petition is that some of the copies of the documents served upon the detune by the Detaining Authority were not legible and on account of the same, the detune could not make proper representation before the Advisory Board.
14. This Court posed specific question to the learned SPP, he rightly and fairly submits that out of three bounds of the documents furnished to the detune page Nos.1136 to 1138, 2006 to 2009, 2011 to 2014 and 2139 to 2140 are not legible.
- 13 -
15. The said fair submission is placed on record.
16. We have also perused the said documents. In the documents supplied by the Detaining Authority to the detune, most of the pages are not legible and on account of the same, the detune was unable to make proper representation before the Advisory Board. The same is in utter violations of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
17. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Other reported in 1987 SCC (Cri) 328 at paragraph No.1 held as under:
"1. On October 3, 1985 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B.20, Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears that the petitioner was not immediately available. He was called and
- 14 -
interrogated. He made a statement which was recorded by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. On March 19,1986 an order for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on April 16, 1986 and served with a copy of the order of detention. Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On May 12, 1986 he was produced before the Advisory Board. He made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies of documents which were supplied to him alongwith the grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to have been made by him for supply of legible copies of documents. There is a controversy whether this representation was made on May 8, 1986 or May 12, 1986. From the original files produced before us we find that the representation was typed on May 8, 1986, but actually signed by the detenu on May 12, 1986. But that would not make any difference for the purposes of this case. On May 19, 1986 the Under-Secretary to the Government of India conceded the demand of the detenu for
- 15 -
legible copies of documents and directed the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was also sent to the detenu and was acknowledged by him on May 21, 1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on July 1, 1986, whereas according to the counter- affidavit of Shri S.K. Chowdhry, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the documents were supplied on June 21, 1986. It does not make any difference whether the documents were supplied on June 21, 1986 or on July 1, 1986 since we find that even before legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the detention order was confirmed on June 14, 1986. The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was therefore a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is now on parole. He need not surrender."
- 16 -
18. In an identical circumstance, the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of M.A. Ellyas Vs. The State of Karnataka in WPHC No.57/2014 dated 14.08.2014 and N.S. Ramesh Vs. The State of Karnatka in WPHC No.156/2014 dated 14.10.2014 held that non-supply of the legible documents/copies to the detune is a clear contravention of the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. Accordingly, has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the detention order made therein and directed the Jail Superintendent to release the detune.
19. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the Negative holding that the Detention Order passed by respondent No.1 dated 27.04.2022 as per Annexure-A and approved by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-E dated 07.05.2022 is not justified and same cannot be sustained.
- 17 -
20. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition (Habeas Corpus) filed by the petitioner is allowed.
ii. The impugned Detention Order
No.10/CRM(4)/DTN/2022 dated 27.04.2022
passed by respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru at Annexure-A and Confirmation Order No.HD 284 SST 2022 dated 07.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-E are hereby quashed.
iii. Respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru is hereby directed to release the detune - Sri. Ravikumar @ Cycle Ravi, S/o late Muniyappa, aged about 45 years forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
- 18 -
iv. Registry is directed to send the operative portion of the order to the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBM