IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WPHC NO.117/2018 BETWEEN SMT RENUKAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.56, MAIN ROAD GANAKALLU, BENGALURU SOUTH, KENGERI, BENGALURU – 560 060 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMI KANTH RAO, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE YESHWANTHAPUR DIVISION YESHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU – 560 003 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BENGALURU CENTRAL JAIL PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU – 560 106 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADDL.ADV.GENERAL A/W SRI. S. V. GIRI KUMAR, AGA) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE DETENTION OF THE DETENUE GALAPPA @ GALA @ SURYA @ THIKLA UNDER THE ORDERS PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.05/CRM(4)/DTN/2018 DATED 13.04.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ORDER NO.HD-
253 SST 2018, BENGALURU DATED 24.04.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER DATED 21.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS VOID AB-INITIO.
THIS WPHC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner who is the mother of the detenu by name Galappa @ Gala @ Surya @ Thikla son of Chikkanna has filed this petition seeking declaration that the detention of the detenu Galappa by the first respondent vide Order No.05/CRM(4)/DTN/2018 dated 13.4.2018 at Annexure-A, which is confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide Order No.HD 253 SST 2018 dated 24.4.2018 as per Annexure-B and Order dated 21.5.2018 as per Annexure-C are all void ab-initio and direct the release of the detenu from the custody and set him liberty.
2. Though various grounds are urged at page 5 of the petition, the learned counsel has concentrated mainly on three grounds which are:
(i) Though the detaining authority has made out as many as 16 grounds to detain the detenu, but in none of the grounds, the detaining authority has secured the bail orders of the detenu, before passing such orders. Therefore, the said order is vitiated by serious procedural irregularities.
(ii) It is also contended that the representation of the petitioner has not been properly considered by the Advisory Board and the Government. It is almost mechanical rejection of the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, on the above said ground also, the order does not sustain and the same is liable to be quashed. The detenu has been released on bail in some of the cases inspite he has been indulged in illegal activities. Therefore, on such facts, the grounds have been formulated against the detenu, the detenu has already been acquitted in some cases but the said factum has not been properly taken into consideration by the detaining authority. Further, the rejection of the representation has not been communicated to the detenu.
(iii) Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the period specified in the order shall not in the first instance exceed three months but the State Government, if satisfied can extend the period for 12 months but at a time, it should not exceed three months. Therefore, on this ground also, the order is not sustainable.
3. We have gone through the detention order passed by the detaining authority. The first respondent as per Annexure-A1, has made out as many as 16 grounds for detention of the detenu. In ground No.1 pertaining to Crime No.109/2005 registered for the offence punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 458, 427, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the accused has been acquitted. Likewise in Crime No.214/2017, ground No.2; in Crime No.163/2008, ground No.3; in Crime No.172/2010, ground No.4; in Crime No.83/2011, ground No.5, the detenu had been tried and acquitted in the above said cases. However, in Crime No.131/2012, ground No.6; in Crime No.378/2014, ground No.9; in Crime No.102/2015, ground No.10; in Crime No.226/2016, ground No.12; in Crime No.428/2016, ground No.13; in Crime No.297/2017, ground No.14; in Crime No.388/2017, ground No.15; registered in various Police Stations, the detenu has been released on bail. Apart from the above, it is stated that he was involved in rowdy activities and therefore, a case in Crime No.71/2018 of Kengeri Police Station has been registered against him, in so far as ground No.16, the case is still under investigation.
4. Looking to the above said grounds urged in the petition, it is not made clear that in which of the cases, the detaining authority has actually relied on those documents and only referred the bail orders is not specifically mentioned in the grounds so as to ascertain whether the detaining authority has actually relied upon them to make it as a ground to detain the detenu. As could be seen from the grounds for detention, it is just stated that in spite of releasing him on bail, he continued his rowdy activities. In none of the cases, the detaining authority has relied upon those documents for the purpose of detaining him in custody. Unless the detaining authority relied upon the said documents, then only the question of securing those documents and furnishing the same to the detenu arises for consideration. Even in the grounds, it is not specifically stated that in which of the ground, the respondent No.1 has relied upon the releasing of the detenu/accused on bail, except merely narrating that he has been released on bail and thereafter also he continued his rowdy activities. However, in some of the cases, he has been acquitted as noted above, but nowhere in the grounds, it is stated that the detaining authority has not taken into consideration the acquittal judgments passed in favour of the detenu. The grounds urged are very vague and it is not specific with reference to any of the grounds of detention as noted in the detention order. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner in an omnibus manner.
5. It is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2000) 9 SCC 170 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 8 that – “We may make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him.“ 6. It is worth to note here another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goutam Jain Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 133, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that -
“If the detention order is based on multiple grounds inasmuch as various different acts, which form separate grounds, are mentioned on the basis of which the detaining authority formed the opinion that it was desirable to put the appellant under detention. The High Court has to dissect the order on each ground of detention, which we find is the correct exercise done by the High Court.”
When the detention order has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be continued to have been made specifically on each of such ground and accordingly when one irrelevant or one inadmissible ground had been taken into consideration and that would not vitiate the entire detention order.
7. In view of the above said decisions, it is the obligation on the part of the petitioner to deal with each and every ground to substantiate before the court, to show that none of the grounds subsists to sustain the detention order, which has not been done so far as this case is concerned.
8. Now, coming to the representation of the detenu.
Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor has furnished the details along with the records, which discloses that, the detenu has made a representation to the detaining authority on 21.4.2018 and the same has been considered by the detaining authority and rejected the same. Further, the representation dated 21.4.2018 has also been considered by the Advisory Board. Therefore, there is no ground made out that his representation has not been considered. The adequacy or inadequacy for consideration of the representation cannot be gone into by this court as the same is left to the sound discretion of the Government as well as the Advisory Board.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the records showing that the representation has been considered by the Government and the Advisory Board on the same day, that cannot be a ground to meddle with the order. Therefore, it is not proper and we do not want to interfere with such an order. We are only concerned whether the said representation has been considered by the Government before passing the confirmation order or not. The confirmation order is passed on 10.5.2018 and the representation has also been considered by the Government. It is contended that the rejection of the representation has not been communicated to the detenu but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this court as to under what provision, the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985, the obligation is cast upon the detaining authority to communicate the rejection of the representation filed by the detenu. In fact, it goes without saying that once the representation is filed and it is rejected and confirmation order is passed, the confirmation order itself is the communication that his representation has not been considered by the Government and the Advisory Board. Under the above said circumstances, we do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the detention order. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PL*