Budihal R.B., J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus and to declare detention order passed by respondent 1 in No. CCRB: Belagavi City: Goonda Act:283:2015, dated 30-5-2015 vide (Annexure-A) and confirmed by respondent 2 in No. HD 257 SST 2015, dated 30-6-2015 (Annexure 3) as illegal and void ab initio and to grant consequential reliefs in the matter. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that, detenue has been detained in Central Jail, Ballari in pursuance of an order of detention purported to have been passed by respondent under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Goonda Act'), dated 30-5-2015 as per Annexure-A. Detenue was served with copies of order of detention passed by respondent 1 in Kannada language which is produced as per Annexure-A. Detenue has purportedly been served with grounds of detention and the materials relied upon in passing the detention order in a bound volume. Grounds of detention furnished to the detenue in English language is produced as Annexure-B and Kannada translation is produced as per Annexure-B1. The order of detention passed by the respondent was required to be forwarded to the respondent 2 along with grounds on which order was made and documents relied upon and the same was required to be approved by respondent 1 within 12 days of issue of order of detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. It is further submitted that respondent 1 detained the detenue by passing such order and the same is erroneous, illegal and passed in total defiance of the law of preventive detention and the further approval of the same by respondent 2 is also bad and hence it is liable to be set aside.

2. The petitioner has also raised grounds alleging that the detention order is illegal and it violates all the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The grounds urged are from paragraphs 7 to 17 of the petition.

3. The respondents filed statement of objections to the petition contending that after passing the detention order along with the grounds of detention, copies are served to the detenue in three languages, i.e., Kannada, English and Marathi. It is also contended in the objection statement that the detenue is involved in any criminal cases. In the year 2011 his name was entered in rowdy sheet as he was involved in prejudicial activities to the maintenance of peace. It is further contended that after getting reports from the concerned Police authority about the antecedents of the detenue it was necessary for the detaining authority to pass such order for detention of the detenue. It is further contended that there is no illegality committed by the respondent-authorities in passing such order. The order of detention with its confirmation and continuation of the said order is in accordance with law. Thus, respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. We have heard arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-authorities.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the material supplied by the respondent-authorities themselves goes to show that the detenue had studied in Marathi School and he was knowing reading, writing and speaking in Marathi language. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that materials were supplied in Kannada and English language but it is not the case of the respondent-authorities that he was knowing reading and writing in both Kannada and English language also. But it is mentioned in their proceedings that he knew to speak in Kannada and English also. Hence, learned Counsel made submission that along with the detention order the grounds of detention were also suppl