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 the order to the State Government”.

3. Sri Chandrashekhar submits that the preventive detention is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:

“22(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.”

4. He submits that there was no compelling necessity to pass an order of detention, as the detenu was already in judicial custody. He submits that the impugned order is vitiated, as the precondition prescribed under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Goondas Act is not present in the instant case. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Goondas Act read as follows:

“3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons. –

(1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-offender or gambler or goonda or immoral traffic offender or slumgrabber that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such persons be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers conferred by the subsection.”

5. He relies on another Division Bench judgment, dated 08.01.2014 passed in WP (HC) No.101/2013, wherein the order of detention was quashed, as it was passed without giving proper reasons and particularly for passing the order of detention in respect of a person who was already in judicial custody and when there was no likelihood of his getting the bail within the period of detention.

6. He submits that some of the documents supporting the detention order are in English. As the detenu knows only Kannada, the Kannada translated version of the documents ought to have been furnished to the detenu. He also complains that some of the copies of the supporting documents were not legible.

7. He submits that the impugned order is not reflective of application of mind. In as many as three criminal cases, he has already been acquitted. The non-consideration of the order of acquittal vitiates the decision making process. He also complains of non-consideration of some bail applications and of the bail orders granted by the competent courts.

8. H