1. This writ petition is filed by the father of the detenue questioning the validity of the detention of his son (detenue) Prakash @ Kashi @ Vandre, by the orders dated 9.2.2018 at Annexures-A to D passed by respondent No.2, approval order bearing No.HD.140.SST.2018, dated 19.2.2018 passed by respondent No.1 and the order of confirmation bearing No.HD.140.SST.2018, dated 16.3.2018 passed by respondent No.1, as illegal and void and ab initio.

2. The learned counsel Sri Ranganatha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the father of the detenue, who has been detained under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SlumGrabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short ‘Goonda Act’) and now currently detenue is in the central prison. By virtue of the orders at Annexures-A and B passed by respondent No.2, the detenue had been detained in the jail and the same has been confirmed by respondent No.1 by the orders at Annexures-E and F. He further submitted that the order of detention contains the fact that the detenue is 26 years old, he discontinued his studies and his date of birth is 16.11.1990. His mother tongue being Tamil, he learnt to speak Kannada and Tamil. But the order of the detention passed by respondents is without any effective communication to the detenue so as to make a representation against the order of detention as he does not know other language than Tamil. He further submitted that failure to provide the grounds in the language known to the detenue is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India and as such the same are liable to be set aside. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1153. He further submitted that oral explanation of such order is not sufficient and nonsupply of the translation in the language known to the detenue becomes illegal and it violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hadibandhu Das Vs. District Magistrate and another, reported in AIR 1969 SC 43. He further submitted that the scope of enquiry of the preventive detention is subjective satisfaction and if the order is vague or extraneous, it vitiates the subjective satisfaction. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Biram Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1161. He further submitted that nonexplanation of the grounds to the detenue in his language, amounts to nothing but not granting him an opportunity to make an effective representation and in that light the detention made is invalid. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Raheem Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1998 Crl.LJ 1151. He further contended that there is an unexplained delay in passing the order of detention which is going to prejudice the detenue and even the grounds and material brought on record for launching the prosecution for detention are vague and as such the same are not sustainable in law. He further submitted that there is a difference between public order and law & order, the grounds on which the detenue has been detained can be prevented by virtue of law & order and the criminal cases have already been registered against him and he has already been released on bail. But there is no material to show that there is a breach of public order and as such the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.K.Saravana Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in Criminal Appeal No.133