Karnataka High Court
Padmavathi C Karkera vs State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
WPHC. No.105/2014
BETWEEN:
PADMAVATHI .C. KARKERA
W/O LATE CHANDAPPA KARKERA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT "SRI PADMA", NAGESH NAGARA,
AMBALPADY POST,
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 103.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI:NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MANGALORE CITY,
MANGALORE, D.K.-575 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON,
2
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARA-585 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: E.S. INDIRESH, HCGP)
DETENUE:
SRI PRADEEP MENDON @PRADEEP @ PRADEE
S/O. LATE CHANDAPPA KARKERA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR BABBARYA TEMPLE,
BOKKAPATNA, BENGRE,
MANGALORE, D.K.
...DETENUE
WPHC UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE
PLEASED TO ISSUE
A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING
OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 02.09.2013 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.MAG/234/MGC/2013 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE 'A' AND ANNEXURE A1.
B) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING
OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER OF DETENTION DATED
06.09.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.HD308SST
2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE 'B'.
C) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING
THE FURTHER ORDER OF DETENTION ORDER DATED
22.10.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.
NO.HD308SST 2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE 'D'.
D) A WRIT OF DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3
TO RELEASE THE DETENUE BY NAME PRADEEP MENDON S/O
LATE CHANDAPPA KARKERA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT
NEAR BABBARYA TEMPLE, BOKKAPATNA, BENGRE
MANGALORE, D.K.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
K.L.MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue Pradeep Mendon, who has been detained under the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act. He is under detention since 2.9.2013. The order dated 2.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mangalore has been confirmed by the respondent No.1 on 6.9.2013. Thereafter, he was produced before the Advisory Board on 13.9.2013. The Advisory Board having applied its mind, has confirmed the order of detention. Thereafter, by order dated 22.10.2013, respondent No.1 has passed an order to detain detenue under detention for a period of 12 months to be calculated from the detention order dated 2.9.2013. This order is called in question in this petition. 4
2. Though several grounds have been urged in the petition, the only ground urged by the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to pass an order of detention for a period of 9 months (for a period of 12 months to be calculated from the order of detention i.e., 2.9.2013) as the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2811. According to him, as per Section 13 of the Act, Government is empowered to pass an order of extension for a maximum period of 12 months. However, such power is subject to Section 3 of the Act which mandates that at any point of time, the period of detention shall not be extended beyond three months. On completion of 3 months, it shall be further extended for another period of 3 months which can be extended upto a maximum period of 12 months only. 5
3. The Government Advocate submits that if the Government has passed an order under Section 3 of the Act, the contention of the petitioner can be accepted since the order is passed by the Government exercising the power vested under Section 13 of the Act, the Government has exercised its power and passed an order of detention for a period of 12 months. Therefore, he contends that the facts in Chenkuri Mani's case stated supra are different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the petition.
4. In view of proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the Government can extend the period of detention beyond 3 months and to a maximum period of 12 months from the order of detention.
5. We have also perused the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra. On perusal of paragraphs 6 13, 16 and 17 of the said case, it is clear that Government is empowered to extend the period of detention upto a maximum period of 12 months, but Government cannot direct or extend such period ignoring the cautious legislative intent as provided under proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act.
6. Hence we are of the considered view that Section 13 cannot be read in isolation with Section 3 of the Act and they have to be read together. The extension of detention made vide impunged order passed by respondent No.1 for a period of 12 months from 22.10.2013 has to be quashed.
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The order passed by respondent No.1 in HD308- SST- 2013 dated 22.10.2013 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.
7
The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to release the Detenue i.e., Pradeep Mendon S/o Late Chandappa Karkera aged about 43 Years, R/at Near Babbarya Temple, Bokkapatna, Bengre Mangalore, D.K. forthwith if he is not otherwise required in any other matter.
Registry is directed to forward the operative portion of the order to the Jail Authorities concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DM*