IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.152 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
01.SRI ROHIDAS @ AKASHA BHAVAN SHARAN @ CHARAN S/O.SRI.SADASHIVA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.4-107, ANANDANAGAR KAPIGUDDE CROSS AKASHABHAVANA KAVOORU MANGALURU TALUK-575 001 (PRESENTLY AT CENTRAL PRISON, VIJAYAPURA) 02.SRI.SADASHIVA POOJARI S/O.SRI.GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS KAPIGUDDE CROSS AKASHABHAVANA, KAVOORU MANGALURU TALUK -575 001.
(BY SRI:M.ARUNA SHYAM, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
01.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
02. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (LAW & ORDER) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
03.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALURU CITY MANGALURU – 575 001.
04.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KAVOORU POLICE STATION MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.
05.THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:E.S.INDIRESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE DETENTION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 08-02-2017 IN NO.MAG/17/MGC/2017 AND THE ORDER DATED 17-02-2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN G.O.NO.HD 69 SST 2017 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 06-02-2017 IN NO.HD 69 SST 2017 THEREBY PASSING THE DETENTION ORDER, APPROVAL ORDER AND CONFIRMATION ORDER PASSED UNDER THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DRUG OFFENDERS, GAMBLERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFICKING OFFENDERS, SLUM GRABBERS AND VIDEOR OR AUDIO PIRATES ACT, 1985 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE GOONDA ACT FOR SHORT) AND KEEPING THE FIRST PETITIONER IN CENTRAL PRISON VIJAYAPURA UNDER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner No.1 is the detenue. Petitioner No.2 is his father. The order of detention dated 08-02-2017 was passed by the third respondent and it was approved by the second respondent on 17-10-2017. The first petitioner was detained. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board by its order dated 03-03-2017 rejected his plea. Thereafter the order of confirmation was passed by the second respondent on 06-02-2017 in terms of Annexure-C.
2. The only ground urged by the petitioners’ counsel is that the grounds of detention have been communicated to him in English, but he is not aware of English language. He has studied only up to 8th Standard in Kannada medium. Therefore, his right to make a representation has stood infringed. In support of his case, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1982 SC 1500 and also in the case of PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA v/s COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in 1985 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 144.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner having studied in Kannada medium upto 8th Standard is deemed to know English and therefore, the plea put up by him is false.
4. Heard learned counsels.
5. In the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that until and unless the detenue understands all the material which prevailed upon the Authorities to pass the order of detention is made known to him in the language that he understands, the order of detention stands vitiated. His right to make an effective representation stands infringed. The material on record would indicate that the detenue has studied upto 8th Standard in Kannada medium as could be seen from the order dated 08-02-2017 of the Detaining Authority itself. Therefore, when the grounds of detention are in a language which the detenue does not understand, the order of detention stands vitiated.
6. In view of the fact that the aforesaid ground urged by the petitioner renders the detention order as bad in law, no other contention is urged by the counsel. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the orders of detention stands vitiated in view of the aforesaid reasons.
7. Following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed. The order of detention passed by Respondent No.3 dated 08-02-2017 and the orders dated 17-02-2017 and 06-02-2017 passed by Respondent No.2 are quashed.
Rule issued is made absolute.
The detenue-Sri.Rohidas @ Akasha Bhavan Sharan @ Charan shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case/s.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-*dkb