Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Beerappa Mudhol vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB
WP No. 100146 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100146 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH
S/O BEERAPPA MUDHOL
AGE. 41 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BEHIND BUS DEPOT,
RAMADURGA, DISTRICT BELAGAVI,
NATIVE OF MIRJI VILLAGE MUDHOL TALUKA,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT.
Digitally
...PETITIONER
signed by
ANJALI M
Location: (BY SRI. S.S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
High Court
of SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, LAW AND ORDER
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB
WP No. 100146 of 2025
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
OF CRPC(528) OF BNNS PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND QUASH
THE DETENTION ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
12/12/2024, BEARING NO.HD/586 SST 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-
C AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO & ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB
WP No. 100146 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is aggrieved by the State Government's order dated 12.12.2024 [Annexure - C] under Section 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 [for short, 'the Goonda Act']. Sri. S.S. Yadrami, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, proposes to sustain the challenge to the order dated 12.12.2024 on the following grounds:
[a] A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.H.C. No.100003/2014 and connected matters, which are decided on 04.09.2014, has opined that under Section 3(2) proviso of the Goonda Act the maximum period for detention can only be for three years.
[b] If certain persons have been given the benefit of the proposition that detention -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB WP No. 100146 of 2025 orders cannot be beyond three months, the others who are similarly situated cannot be denied the benefit.
[c] The petitioner's wife has filed a
representation as against the
petitioner's detention, but that
representation has not been
considered.
Sri. S.S. Yadrami also proposes to engage this Court on the merits of the State Government's order dated 12.12.2024 in view of the exposition by the Apex Court in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others1.
2. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate, submits that there cannot be any interference either on the first two grounds or on the third ground in view of the fact that the Apex Court in Pesala Nookaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and 1 [2023] 9 SCC 587 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB WP No. 100146 of 2025 others2 has declared that its earlier decision in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh3 does not lay down the correct law and that the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.H.C. No.100003/2014 is only because of the proposition in Cherukuli Mani. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar further states that the representation by the petitioner's wife has been considered before the grant of approval for the detention order as contemplated under Goonda Act and after the approval order dated 02.12.2024, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner's wife is issued with Endorsement in these regards on 15.11.2024.
3. This Court cannot grant any indulgence on the first three grounds based on the decision in W.P.H.C. No.100003/2014 because of the decision in Pesala Nookaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [supra]. As regards the reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ameena Begaum, this Court must opine that there are no pleadings if the petitioners cannot succeed on 2 [2023] 14 SCC 641 3 (2015) 13 SCC 722 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2311-DB WP No. 100146 of 2025 the first three grounds in the light of the Apex Court's later decision in Pesala Nookaraju, he must be at liberty to question the merits of the confirmation order dated 12.12.2024 in view the exposition in Ameena Begaum. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions including the observation that the petitioner will not be entitled to urge the first three grounds that are considered.
All pending applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12