Point of law : words 'shall afford him the earliest opoortunity of making a representation against the order' in Article 22(5) of the Constitution suggest that the obligation of the Government is to offer the detenu an opportunity of making a representation against the order, before it is confirmed.

ORDER :

NAGARATHNA, J.

This writ petition assails the order of preventive detention bearing reference No.CRM4/DTN/08/2020, dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure-A) passed by the first respondent and order dated 03.10.2020, reference No. HD 90 SST 2020, dated 03.10.2020 (Annexure-B) and order bearing reference No.HD 90 SST 2020, dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-D) passed by the second respondent.

2. The petitioner has in substance assailed the order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video and Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity).

(a) According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Bengaluru. Owing to financial difficulties, he was constrained to discontinue his studies in 9th standard and was forced to take up hard menial jobs for supporting his family. Recently, he married Shabana Banu. But she passed away last year. Petitioner is the sole caretaker of his two sons, Rayan who is eight years old and Rihan, who is three years old.

(b) That on 25.09.2020, respondent No.1 passed an order (at Annexure ‘A’) under Section 3(1) of the Act directing petitioner's detention in Central Prison, Bengaluru. Respondent No.1, inter alia, has stated that the petitioner has been engaged in criminal activities since the year 2004 creating an atmosphere of fear among the general public. That the petitioner has time and again violated bail conditions imposed on him by several Courts and three rowdy sheets have been opened by three different Police Stations to monitor his activities. Three volumes of documents were handed over to the petitioner, which according to him, are incomprehensible and being a school drop out, he is unable to correlate and understand the relevancy of the documents to the false charges levelled against him, by order dated 25.09.2020.

(c) The order dated 25.09.2020 passed by respondent No.1 was placed before respondent No.2 for approval in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act on 29.09.2020. Respondent No.2 confirmed the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by respondent No.1 on 03.10.2020 observing that: (i) the petitioner was arraigned as an accused in 14 criminal cases; (ii) there were three rowdy sheets opened against the petitioner in three different Police stations; (iii) the petitioner admittedly committed offences under Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and therefore fell within the definition of Goonda under the Act; (iv) the petitioner posed a threat to public peace and tranquility; (v) owing to the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents, the members of the public were afraid to lodge a complaint or tender evidence against him; (vi) the petitioner allegedly violated bail conditions imposed upon him in several criminal proceedings pending against him;

(d) On confirmation of the order of detention, notice dated 28.10.2020 was issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 directing him to keep the petitioner present before the Advisory Board for hearing on 02.11.2020. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed an order on 12.11.2020 under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act directing detention of the petitioner for a period of one year from 25.09.2020.

(e) According to the petitioner, he submitted a detailed representation to second respondent and the Chairman of the Advisory Board through respondent No.3 on 12.01.2021 setting out several grounds for revocation of the detention order. No acknowledgement of the said representation has been provided to the petitioner or his brother. Also, on the date of filing of the writ petition, no intimation, let alone any decision on the representation has been taken or communicated to the petitioner or his brother. In the circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the order of preventi