The court established that the detaining authority must inform the detenue of his right to make a representation against the detention order before it is approved by the State Government, as mandated by Sec. 8 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Brother of detenue by name Saifuddin @ Saifu S/o Abdul Khader resident of Athrady village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District has filed this writ petition under Sec. 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

a. A writ in the nature of Habeas corpus by quashing of the order of detention dtd. 11/4/2022 passed by respondent No.2 in No.MAG(2)CR/168/2023 E-111120, which is produced at Annexure A and Annexure - A1 in the interest of justice.

b. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by quashing the approval order dtd. 19/4/2023 passed by the respondent No.1 in H.D.208 SST 2023, Bengaluru which is produced at Annexure - C in the interest of justice.

c. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by quashing the confirmation order dtd. 24/5/2023 passed by the respondent No.1 in H.D. 208 SST 2023, Bengaluru which is produced at Annexure - E in the interest of justice.

d. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to set at the detenue Saifuddin @ Saifu at liberty by releasing him from prison forthwith, in the interest of justice.

e. Any other order or direction may be issued as consequential orders, in the interest of justice.

2. Various grounds are urged in the writ petition seeking the said reliefs.

3. We have heard the arguments of learned senior counsel Sri. Kiran S.Javali on behalf of petitioner and learned HCGP.

4. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the order of detention was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District in Order No.MAG (2) CR/168/2023, E 111120 dtd. 11/4/2023 as per Annexure - A. On that basis issued detention order on the same day as per Annexure - B. The Annexure - A1 was submitted to the State Government by the District Magistrate for confirmation in accordance with the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goodas, Immortal Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and video or Audio pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short referred as 'Act'). The State Government had passed the orders as per Sec. 3(1) of the Act as per Annexure - C dtd. 19/4/2023, confirming detention order passed by District Magistrate

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in Annexure - A, which is ordered by District Magistrate under Sec. 3(2) of the Act, he had to intimate "the detenue that the detenue has right of giving representation to the District Magistrate, who passed detention order for reviewing the order of detention, before the order passed by him is approved by the State Government. However, in Annexure - A, the District Magistrate has referred that the detenue can file a representation to the State Government or Advisory Board through Superintendent of Central Prison, Belagavi." Therefore, the learned District Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory requirement of the Act to inform the detenue about his right to give the representation to him for reviewing the order of detention.

6. He has further submitted that in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Santosh Shankar Acharya, (2000) 7 SCC 463. wherein it is held that if the detaining authority, who passed detention order under Sec. 3(2) of the Act, failed to inform the detenue about his right to make a representation to him, until detention order passed by him is approved by State Government within 12 days and non- communication there of would vitiate the detention order. The law laid down in the said judgment by the Hon'ble Apex court is applicable to the facts in the present case. Hence, prayed to quash the order of detention passed at Annexure - A, C and E.

7. The learned HCGP vehemently contended that the District Magistrate while passing the orders as per Annexure - A has followed all the requirement of the law. It is mentioned in the said order that a detenue can submit his representation to the State Government or Advisory Board through Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Belagavi. It was informed to the det