The petitioner has called into question the preventive detention order, dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-A) and the order, dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure-H) continuing the detention for a period of one year.

2. Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel appearing for Sri Babu Rao Mangane for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order, dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-A) without applying his mind. He submits that the petitioner is already acquitted in so many criminal cases. He submits that the offences being attributed to the petitioner are all excise offences. The petitioner can be dealt with in the ordinary course pressing into motion the ordinary criminal law. For advancing this submission, he relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of MUNAGALA YADAMMA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (2012) 2 SCC 386. There is no need to detain him under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Goondas Act’).

3. Sri Ashok Mulage submits that the order, dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure-H) continuing the petitioner’s detention for a period of one year is illegal. There is no provision in the Goondas Act for passing the order of detention against anybody for a period of twelve months in one go. He read out from the Goondas Act Section 3(2) and the proviso thereto, which are extracted hereinbelow:

“3(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:

Provided that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this subsection shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.”

4. He relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of CHERUKURI MANI VS. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2014 AIAR (Criminal) 640. Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the said decision, read out by him, are extracted hereinbelow:

“13. Proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 3 is very clear in its purport, as to the operation of the order of detention from time to time. An order of detention would in the first instance be in force for a period of three months. The Government alone is conferred with the power to extend the period, beyond three months. Such extension, however, cannot be for a period, not exceeding three months, at a time. It means that, if the Government intends to detain an individual under the Act for the maximum period of 12 months, there must be an initial order of detention for a period of three months, and at least, three orders of extension for a period not exceeding three months each. The expression “extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time” assumes significance in this regard.

14. The requirement to pass order of detention from time to time in the manner referred to above, has got its own significance. It must be remembered that restriction of initial period of detention to three months, is nothing but implementation of the mandate contained in Clause (4) (a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It reads as under:

Clause 4: No law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless

(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of