The detaining authority must consider the detenue's representation as early as possible, and any delay would be unconstitutional. Non-consideration of the detenue's representation violates the rights conferred upon the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who is the brother of the detenue Rohidas @ Akasha Bhavan Sharan @ Charan (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenue'), with a prayer to quash the detention order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by respondent no.3, the order dtd. 17/2/2022 passed by respondent no.2 approving the detention order and the order dtd. 29/3/2022 passed by respondent no.2 confirming the detention order passed 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, 'the Act').

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned State Public Prosecutor-II on behalf of the respondents.

3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition narrated in brief are, respondent no.3 had passed an order of detention dtd. 10/2/2022 under the provisions of the Act against the detenue on the ground that he was allegedly involved in as many as 19 criminal cases and he was an habitual offender who continued to commit offences against person and property and with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to pass the order of detention against him.

4. The said order of detention and the grounds of detention was served on the detenue. Respondent no.2, on 17/2/2022, had approved the order of detention passed by respondent no.3, and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Advisory Board on 21/3/2022. The Advisory Board has forwarded a report to the State Government stating that sufficient cause and grounds were made out for passing the order of detention against the detenue which was approved by the State Government. After receipt of such a report, the State Government by its order dtd. 29/3/2022 had confirmed the order of detention fixing the period of detention as one year from the date of the order. The writ petition was thereafter filed by the brother of the detenue challenging the detention order, approval order and the confirmation order.

5. The respondents having entered appearance in the matter, have filed statement of objections denying the petition averments and have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was in judicial custody as on the date of passing the detention order, and therefore, it was wholly unnecessary to pass the detention order against the detenue. He submits that the representation given by the detenue has not been considered by the Advisory Board and the State Government. He also submits that the documents furnished to him which was relied for the purpose of passing the detention order are not legible, and therefore, an effective representation could not be made by the detenue. He submits that the representations were forwarded from the jail, and therefore, the detenue has not retained the copy of the representation.

7. Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor-II submits that the requirement of the provisions of the Act have been complied with by the authorities while passing the detention order. He submits that the detenue has given the representation only to the Detaining Authority which has been considered and rejected and no representation has been given by the detenue to the State Government or to the Advisory Board. He also submits that the detenue has not raised any grievance prior to the filing of the writ petition to the effect that the documents supplied to him were not legible. He also submits that the order of detention can be passed even when the detenue is in jail and in support of this argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER VS DIMPLE HAPPY DHAKAD - (2019)20 SCC 609.

8. The contention of the petitioner that since the detenue was