AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 24.02.2014 which has been confirmed by the second respondent vide order dated 05.03.2014 whereunder the brother-in-law of the petitioner by name Jafri @ Kaliya, S/o. Fayaz, R/o. Jopadpatti, Near Ambivali Railway Station, Indiranagar, Kalyan, Mumbai, has been ordered to be detained under the provisions of Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985 (Known as Goonda Act).
By order dated 24.02.2014, the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore in reference No. CRM/DPN/3-2014 passed an order of detention exercising his power under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985).
The aforesaid order of detention has been confirmed by the State of Karnataka, by order dated 05.03.2014 and thereafter on 09.04.2014, the State of Karnataka extended the period of detention for a period of 12 months from 24.02.2014. Therefore, these orders are called in question in this writ petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
Though several grounds are urged by the petitioner at the time of arguments, he mainly contends that the order of detention of the State Government dated 09.04.2014 extending the period of detention for 12 months is contrary to the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Cherikurimani Vs. the Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others. According to him Section 3 of the Goonda Act provides how the period of detention can be extended from time to time and what would be the maximum period of detention that a person can be detained in custody. According to him, from time to time the Government or the Delegate Authority are empowered to extend the period of detention once in three months for a maximum period of 12 months. But in the instant case, the State Government vide order dated 09.04.2014 has straightaway extended the period of detention for a period of twelve months to be calculated from 24.02.2014. Therefore, he requests to allow the writ petition and quash the orders.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that there is no embargo for the State Government to pass an order of detention for a maximum period of twelve months as contemplated under the Act and there is no necessity for the Government to go on extending the period of detention once in three months. According to him the State Government has not committed any error and the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act applies only if such order is passed either by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Police.
According to him, after the detenue was produced before the Advisory Court, it is the discretion of the State Government to detain the detenue for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of initial order of detention. Therefore he requests to dismiss this petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of Section 3 of the Act, we are of the view that proviso to Sub-section 2, wherein it is clearly mentioned that how the period of twelve months can be extended from time to time not only by the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police but also by the State Government.
When the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Sub-section 3 includes the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police and the State Government and the State Government cannot pass the orders directly to detain a person u/s 3 of the Act for a maximum period of twelve months. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that on technical ground, since the State Government has committed an error in not extending the order of detention from time to time, we have to allow this petition.
In the result, petition is allowed.
The order dated 24.02.2014, further order dated 05.03.2014 and further order dated 09.04.2014 are hereby quashed. The detenue is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other matter.
Intimate the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Bangalore, to see that the detenue is set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other matter.