ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI, B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
Sangeeta – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
The petitioner is the wife of Sri Satish, who is detained in the Central Prison, Bijapur pursuant to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in exercise of power conferred by Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘Goondas Act’). The detenu is subsequently shifted to the Central Prison in Gulbarga.
2. Sri Chandrashekhar K., learned counsel appearing for Sri Venkatesh C Mallabadi for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad, as no opportunity is afforded to the detenu to give representation to the State Government against the order of detention. In support of his submissions, he read out the provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Goondas Act, which is extracted herein below:
“8 (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against
PUSHKAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in AIR 1970 SC 852
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS v. SANTOSH SHANKAR ACHARYA reported in (2000) 7 SCC 463
SUBRAMANIAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 4 SCC 699
G. REDDEIAH vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (2012) 2 SCC 389
HADIBANDHU DAS V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH v. DISTT.MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.