Kusuma vs The State of Karnataka and Others

G. Narendra, J.

The above writ petition is filed by one Smt. Kusuma, w/o. Vasudev. The case of the petitioner is that she is the sister of detenu Giddappa alias Lambu Giddappa, s/o. Mahadevappa. The, brief facts as narrated by the petitioner is that she is approaching this Court on behalf of detenu as he has been incarcerated and is unable to approach this Court challenging the order of detention. It is the case of the petitioner that, the detenu has been taken into preventive custody on 11.04.2015 on the ground that he is indulging in gambling activities which is having deleterious effect on the citizens and the economy.

The sole ground raised by the petitioner is that there, is no material whatsoever produced by the respondent authorities to detain the detenu and the impugned order of detention does not disclose any right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority and on the said ground, the petitioner contends that the impugned order of detention is vitiated. It is undisputed that the power to revoke the detention order is also vested in the Detaining Authority itself. That being so the Detaining Authority ought to have put the detenu on notice regarding this valuable right.

The petitioner relies on an order rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.H.C. No. 1/2014 wherein, this Court was pleased to hold as hereunder:

"4. Heard learned counsels. It is not in dispute that an opportunity shall be given to the detenu to give a representation to consider his case to the detaining authority only. Unfortunately in the present case, vide Annexure-A the 1st respondent has stated in his order that if the petitioner''s husband so desires to make a representation he can send a representation to the State of Karnataka through the Superintendent of Jail which is quite contrary to the provisions of the Act and also Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India".

The learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections. The respondents do not deny the contention that no right of representation to the Detaining Authority has been made known to the detenu. In the light of the same, the writ petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of detention is quashed. The respondents are directed to set at liberty the petitioner''s brother forthwith if not required in any other cases.

The operative portion of the order be communicated to the fifth respondent.