IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WP (HC).NO.104 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI B.K.PRAKASH S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, FAIR PRICE DEPOT NO.19/1, DARJIPET, RANGASWAMY TEMPLE STREET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 053. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SOUTH ZONE, BENGALURU – 560 004.
4. FOOD INSPECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SOUTH ZONE OFFICE, N.R.COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 004.
5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA) ***** THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY; CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.6.2017 PASSED BY R2 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WP(HC) COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed seeking writ of habeas corpus to produce the petitioner.
2. The petitioner seeks release from preventive detention. The case made out by him is that, a case was registered by the City Market Police, Bengaluru in connection with Crime No.119 of 2017, as well as in Crime No.120 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections–3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, an order of preventive detention has been passed under the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Hence, the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner, the order of preventive detention cannot be passed. That no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to make a representation under the said Act. Therefore, it violates the provisions of the Constitution. Hence, he pleads that the petitioner be released from the preventive detention.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State disputes the said contention.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition.
6. The pendency or otherwise of the criminal cases lodged against the Detenue is only a factor to be considered by the authorities while passing an order of detention. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since a reasonable opportunity to make a representation has not been provided, the fundamental rights of the petitioner is affected.
7. After the detention of the petitioner, the matter would be placed before the Advisory Board. Thereafter, if the Advisory Board so decides, the matter will be placed before the State Government for issuing the order of detention. Thereafter, the preventive detention order may or may not be confirmed by the State Government. It is only then that the contention of the petitioner can be considered. At this stage, when the matter has still not reached even the Advisory Board, it is not possible for this Court to entertain this petition. Whatever grounds have been urged, will necessarily be considered after the confirmation order of Prevention Detention by the State Government.
8. Hence, we find no ground to interfere.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ