IMPORTANT POINT
There is no constitutional mandate under Clause (5) of Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention. In other words, the competent authority can consider the representation only after the order of confirmation.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam,J. —

1) Leave granted.

2) The appellant has filed this appeal against the final judgment and order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in a writ of Habeas Corpus being Writ Petition No. 220 of 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of detention dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, vide CRM(4)/DTN/10/2010.

3) Brief facts:

(a) According to the Detaining Authority, the appellant-detenue, when he was 30 years old, started his career in criminal field by committing offences like murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, assault, damaging the public property, provoking the public, attempt to grab the property of the public, extortion while settling land disputes and possessing of illegal weapons etc.

(b) By the date of the detention order, i.e. on 22.09.2010, eleven cases had been filed against the detenue and out of them, four cases were pending trial before the respective Courts and records have been destroyed as time barred in four cases. In two cases, he has been acquitted. In pending cases, he was granted bail from the courts and in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years by the Sessions Court, Bangalore. The detention order further shows that because of his habituality in committing crimes, violating public order by threatening the public, causing injuries to them and damaging their properties and he was not amenable and controllable by the normal procedure, detained him as ‘goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Karnataka Act”) (Act No. 12 of 1985) for a period of 12 months.

(c) The appellant himself challenged the detention order before the High Court of Karanataka by filing a writ of Habeas Corpus. Before the High Court, the only contention put-forth by the appellant was that there was enormous delay in considering his representation made on 06.10.2010 to the Advisory Board for withdrawal of the detention order. While negating the said contention, the Division Bench of the High Court has gone into the validity or otherwise of the detention order and after finding that the Detaining Authority was fully justified in clamping the detention order, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-detenue vide order dated 28.03.2011. The said order is under challenge before us by way of special leave petition.

4) Heard Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel for the appellant-detenue and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the State of Karanataka.

5) The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Detaining Authority is justified in passing the detention order dated 22.09.2010 and the High Court is right in confirming the same and dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant?

6) The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985 shows that the activities of certain anti-social elements like bootleggers, drug-offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and slum grabbers have from time to time caused a feeling of insecurity and alarm among the public and tempo of life especially in urban areas has frequently been disrupted because of such persons. In order to ensure that the maintenance of public order in the State of Karnataka is not adversely affected by the activities of these known anti-social elements, it is considered necessary to enact a special legislation. The following provisions of Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 are relevant :

“2. Definitions : - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” means, -

(i) .............................................................

(ii) ............................................................

(i