Nagarathna, J.

1. Pursuant to an order of reference, dated 03/12/2015 made by Hon'ble Billappa and Phaneendra JJ., these Writ Petitions have been referred to this Full Bench.

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and carefully perused the order of reference.

3. The order of reference arises under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum- Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity. The same reads as under:-

"WPHC No.149/2015 c/w WPHC Nos.152/2015 & 159/2015

HBJ & KNPJ:

03.12.2015

ORDER

In WP(HC) No.149/2015 the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 14.04.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide order dated 14.05.2015 and subsequent extension dated 24.09.2015 as per Annexure-F.

In WP(HC).No.152/2015 the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 18.03.2015 vide Annexure-A and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-B dated 04.05.2015 and subsequent extensions dated 17.06.2015 and 07.09.2015.

In WP(HC).No.159/2015 the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 28.10.2015 on the ground that no period of detention has been mentioned in the detention order and there are no sufficient grounds to pass the detention order.

The petitioner in WP(HC).No.149/2015 had approached this Court in WP(HC). No.74/2015. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.07.2015 has dismissed the writ petition holding that the detention order dated 14.04.2015 and its confirmation is justified.

The petitioner in WP(HC).No.152/2015 had approached this Court in WP(HC) No.94/2015. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.07.2015 has dismissed the writ petition holding that the detention order dated 18.03.2015 and its confirmation is justified.

In WP(HC).No.149/2015 and WP(HC).

No.152/2015 the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the second time contending that the detention order and its extension are illegal. Further, the detention order can be passed only for a period of three months and not twelve months at a stretch.

In W.P.No.159/2015 the petitioner has contended that no period of detention is mentioned in the detention order and it is without any basis.

The learned Government Advocate raised preliminary objection contending that the writ petitions in WP(HC).No.149/2015 and WP(HC). No.152/2015 are not maintainable as the detention orders were already challenged in the earlier writ petitions WP(HC) No. 74/2015 and WP(HC).No.94/2015.

The learned counsel for the parties in the above writ petitions have placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. ILR 2006 KAR page 898

2. W.P.No.164/2007 (disposed of on 16.04.2008)

3. W.P.No.105/2014 (disposed of on 04.08.2014)

4. W.P.No.200004/2015 (disposed of on 09.04.2015)

5. 1990(2) SCC page 456

6. 2014(3) AICLR page 348

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.

There are conflicting views regarding maintainability of the second writ petition and interpretation of section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985.

In Srikant vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others reported in ILR 2006 Kar 898 and in WP(HC).No.200004/2015 between Sangeeta Vs. State of Karnataka and others disposed of on 09.04.2015, the Division Benches of this Court have taken a view that second writ petition is not maintainable. In WP(HC).No.164/2007 disposed of on 16.04.2008 the Division Bench of this court has held that second writ petition is maintainable on fresh grounds. Thus, there are conflicting views regarding maintainability of the second writ petition.

In T. Devaki vs. Government of Tamilnadu &