K. Sreedhar Rao, J.,

All these three petitions pertain to the same subject-matter regarding detention of one Narayanaswamy under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short, ‘Act of 1985’).

2. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore-3rd respondent passed an order of detention dated 11.1.2010 vide Annexure-A under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1985. The detenue was arrested and served with a copy of the detention order along with the grounds of detention vide Annexure-B. In reply to the detention order, detenue submitted a representation to the Secretary, Home Department, through Superintendent of Jail on 24.01.2010. The Central Chief Superintendent of Jail sent it to DIG-Prisons on 25.1.2010 who in turn sent it to Inspector General-Prisons on 29.1.2010. The IG-Prisons sent the representation to the Home Secretary. Home Department received the representation on 2.2.2010. The representation was processed by the Under Secretary – Prisons in the Department of Home and sent to Under Secretary, Law and Order who in turn sent the file to the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, on 8.3.2010. Joint Secretary placed the file before the Home Minister on the same day. The representation of the detenue was considered by the Home Minister, but he refrained from passing any order on the ground that the matter is pending before Court, hence, issued an endorsement dated 22.4.2010 to that effect.

3. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenue, filed W.P.H.C. No. 20 of 2010 challenging the order of detention vide Annexure-A. In the meantime, Government approved the order of detention passed by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-C dated 20.1.2010. At that stage, proceedings of the detention were placed before the Advisory Board on 22.2.2010 for consideration. This Court dismissed W.P.H.C. No. 20 of 2010 on 4.2.2010 with the following observations:

‘The Government Advocate submits that the detention order is before the Advisory Board for consideration. In that view, the petition appears to be premature. Hence, the petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Court if necessary after the order of the Advisory Board.’

4. The Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention. Pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the detention order vide Annexure-D dated 25.2.2010. The petitioner herein challenged the legality of Annexure-D in WPHC No. 36 of 2010. This Court allowed the petition and directed reconsideration of the matter by the Government.

5. Government, pursuant to the order in WPHC No. 36 of 2010, reconsidered the matter and confirmed the order of detention vide Annexure-B dated 29.4.2010 which is the subject-matter of challenge in WPHC No. 76 of 2010.

6. Meanwhile, Government filed review of the order passed in WPHC No. 36 of 2010 in

R.P. No. 195 of 2010. This Court allowed the review petition and restored WPHC No. 36 of 2010 for fresh consideration. The wife of the detenue filed petition in WPHC No. 73 of 2010 contending that once the order is set aside and sent for reconsideration, the detenue should be set at liberty, and in this regard sought for a direction to the Government to release him.

7. Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all the petitions, strenuously submitted the following points to assail the order of detention:

i) There is inordinate delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation.

ii) The stated reason for non-consideration of representation in the endorsement dated 22.4.2010 is untenable. Independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board, Government should consider the representation and pass necessary orders. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayanarayan Sukul v State of West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 675 : (1970) 1 SCC 219 : 1970 Cri.L.J. 743 (SC).

iii) Pendency of the writ petition is