Srinivas vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the detention order dated 28th June 2014 and the order of extension of detention period for a period of twelve months from 24th May 2014.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a resident of Devasugur village, Raichur Taluk since twenty years. He was running a small Tea Stall and a Pan shop. He is having a son and two daughters who are studying. The police and Excise authorities have registered about 15 cases for the offence under Section 273, 284 of Indian Penal Code and u/s. 32, 34 of Excise Act and under Section 110of Code of Criminal Procedure, the details of which are stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. On the basis of the report submitted by Respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2 issued a detention order stating that the petitioner is a Bootlegger under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offender, Slum Grabbers and Audio Video Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'' for short), and is a habitual offender committing offences against Public Health and Safety punishable under Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code and Karnataka Excise Act 1965, by exercising power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Excise Act'' for short). The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds in support of the writ petition. Firstly, he submits that the orders passed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 are arbitrary, perverse and passed behind the back of the petitioner on vague and frivolous allegations. Secondly, the report submitted by the 4th respondent is false and the grounds for detention stated by the respondent No. 2 are baseless without records and the grounds stated are on presumption and assumptions. Thirdly, out of the total cases, 7 cases ended-up in acquittal, 3 cases are pending for trial and remaining 4 cases are under investigation, which only shows, Excise Authorities have registered false cases against the petitioner. (d) The respondent has passed the detention order without going into the merit and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Fourthly, without recording subjective satisfaction extension of the detention order for 12 months is indicative of mala fide intention and is clear violation of fundamental rights of an individual. Lastly, the submits that the Act is enacted for preventive detention, whereas the detention of petitioner amounts to punitive detention. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the judgment in the case of Cherukuri Mani Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2090 : (2014) AIRSCW 2811 : (2014) CriLJ 2748 : (2014) 2 RCR(Criminal) 921 : (2014) 6 SCALE 524 to contend that directing detention of the petitioner for a period of twelve months at a stretch is clear violation of the prescribed manner and contrary to the provisions of law; in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2012 SC 890 : (2012) CriLJ 1334 : (2012) 1 JT 1 : (2012) 1 RCR(Civil) 863 : (2012) 1 SCALE 53 : (2012) 2 SCC 72 : (2013) AIRSCW 209 : (2012) AIRSCW 677 : (2012) 1 Supreme 30 to contend that in the absence of proximity of the referred cases to the order of detention, detention order cannot be sustained.

The learned Government Advocate has filed detailed statement of objections denying the petition averments and contending that the impugned detention order and the order extending the same, are passed to maintain the law and order and also to maintain public peace and tranquility in the interest of public at large and there is no mala fide, illegality or arbitrariness in the order and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned orders by specifically contending that the expression "as it thinks fit" in Section 8(f) of the Act indicates that the concerned authority after considering the report of the Advisory Board may fix any period of detention. The authority is not required to give any special reason either for fixing a shorter period or for fixing the maximum period prescribed under Section 10 of the Act. In support of this submission, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1988 SC 934 : (1989) 65 CompCas 568 : (1988) CriLJ 951 : (1988) 3 Crimes 50 : (1988) 17 ECC 82 : (1988) 35 ELT 15 : (1988) 1 JT 448 : (1988) 1 SCALE 443 : (1988) 2 SCC 57 : (1988) 3 SCR 42 .

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and perused the entire records. It is not in dispute that as many as 15 cases have been registered against the petitioner. In the grounds of detention order, all the cases are referred to and also how the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the society. The petitioner is stated to have engaged in supply of Chloral Hydrate chemical and is involved in manufacture/sale of spurious (Synthetic) toddy by not only using Chloral Hydrate but also other substances like Saccharin (artificial sweetener), Yeast (fungi), White Paint (poster colours) and Citric Acid in unscientific manner and thus playing with the lives of the people. In that view of the matter, the order of detention is passed following the prescribed procedure and the said order of detention cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse, and passed behind the back of the petitioner on vague and frivolous allegations.

The petitioner has contended that the report submitted by the 4th respondent is false and the grounds stated by the Respondent No. 2 are baseless. This contention has not been substantiated by producing any materials as to how the report is false and how the grounds of detention order are baseless. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. It is contended that in view of acquittal in seven cases, it shows falsity in the cases registered by the Excise Department and police. Acquittal may be for want of sufficient evidence and the prosecution failing to prove the pleaded case beyond reasonable doubt, which by itself, does not mean that the cases registered against the petitioner are false.

The detention order is passed considering the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner; the matter is referred to the Advisory Board and after receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board, the order of extension of detention is passed. The petitioner has been supplied with all the materials and made known the remedies available to the petitioner, and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that without going into the merits and without giving opportunity to the petitioner detention order is passed and the said detention amounts to punitive detention also cannot be accepted. Maintenance of law and order is the bounden duty of the State. Peace and tranquility in the society is the paramount consideration. If, in the opinion of the authority, the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial and is coming in the way of maintaining law and order, the detention of the petitioner cannot be termed as a punitive action but it is only a preventive action.

It is one of the important contentions of the petitioner that the first respondent ought not to have extended the detention order by a period of 12 months at one stretch, which is not in accordance with proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel in this regard in the case of CHERUKURI MANI (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner since, the extension order is passed under Section 12(1) and Section 13 of the Act, which empowers the State Government to confirm the order of detention for a period of one year. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision in the case of PUSHIKESH TANAJI BHOITE also cannot be pressed into service in this case.

We have given our anxious consideration to all the contentions raised by the petitioner and we are of the view that none of the contentions taken has any substance. The impugned orders are justified in the facts and circumstances and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly rejected.