This habeas corpus petition is filed with a prayer to declare the detention of petitioners cousin brother Alimurtuja Dadapeer Chamanamalik, under the provisions 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 'Goonda Act’) vide detention order No.DC/POL/G.ACT/CR: 02/2015- 16 dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure 'A’) and Order No: HD 417 SST 2015 dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure-C) as illegal and to quash them.

2. Invoking provisions of Section 3(1) r/w sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and Government Order No.HD/72/SST/2013 dated 5.6.2015, the Deputy Commissioner and the District Magistrate, Belagavi (respondent No.2) passed the impugned detention order for the reasons recorded in the grounds of detention.

3. Heard Sri. Amar Correa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Patil, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents “State”.

4. Gravamen of the petitioners case is, respondents have invoked the draconian executive power of preventive detention against the detenu for the reasons enumerated in the grounds of detention which are wholly unjust, violative of fundamental right of the detenu to remain free as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in fragrant violation of all protective procedural law to which the detenu is entitled.

5. Assailing the detention order, Sri. Amar Correa, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended inter alia that:

(i) the detenu was not conveyed that there vests a right in him to submit a representation to the Government and/or to the detaining authority seeking redressal of his grievances and to seek release;

(ii) the detaining authority did not convey to the detenu that a representation could be submitted to the detaining authority itself.

(iii) there is variance between the meaning conveyed between Kannada and English versions of grounds of detention. Kannada version conveys a meaning that the detenu could 'address’ to the detaining authority whereas the English version means that a representation could be 'made’ to the detaining authority. Thus, there is a classic and fine distinction between the word 'address’ and 'make’ which in the context of preventive detention makes enormous difference;

(iv) Order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure “C”) passed by the Government confirming the order passed by the District Magistrate does not disclose that the same is passed after being satisfied with the grounds of detention as well as the order of detention;

(v) Annexure “E”, the order dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Government under section 12(1) & (13) of the Act directing continuance of detention for a period of 12 months, though with a condition to renew once in three months is contrary to law;

(vi) the grounds of detention are drafted in a very causal manner without verifying records. Ground Nos.5, 7, 8 and 9 refer to certain dates of hearing namely 12.08.2015, 03.08.2015, 03.08.2015 and 11.08.2015 respectively on which dates the detenue was required to attend different cases and be present before various courts. The grounds of detention as at Annexure “B” though dated 14.08.2015 which falls subsequent to the aforementioned dates does not disclose developments which may have taken place on the respective dates. Therefore, it is clear that the detaining authority has relied upon information which was collated in a casual manner and any decision based on defective or insufficient material vitiates the detention order;

(vii) the detenu was included in the rowdy sheet in the year 2009 and the detention order is passed in the year 2015 which has no proximity with the period during which the petitioner may have acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order.

On the above grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought for quashing of the impugned order and to set petitioner at liberty.

6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supporting the detention order