Preventive detention orders must follow statutory compliance and aim to prevent future offenses, not punish past actions.

ORDER :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Government Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying this Court to grant following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or direction or any other order in the nature of writ directing the respondents to produce petitioner's husband Md. Rustum Ahmed @ Rustum S/o Abdul Rashid before this Hon'ble Court and consequently set him free in the event of his illegal detention by the respondents in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ quashing the detention order passed by the respondent-2 dated 20-03-2025 in case bearing No.01/Goonda/MAG-2/KN/POAA/2025 as per Annexure-A in respect of detenue Md. Rustum Ahmed @ Rustum S/o Abdul Rashid.

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent bearing No. HD 163 SST 2025 dated 29- 04-2025 as per Annexure-G confirming the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and void”

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of detenue Md. Rustum Ahamed @ Rustum, having four children. Respondent nos.3 to 5 have submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 for the preventive detention of petitioner’s husband and submitted a detailed report along with documents invoking the provisions of the Goonda Act. It is also contended that based on the proposal made by respondents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 exercising his power under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act , 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), passed an order dated 20.03.2025, in Case No.1/Goonda/MAG-2/KN/POAA/2025. A copy of the order is also produced as Annexure-A. It is also contended that respondent No.1-State also confirmed order passed by respondent No.2 through an order dated 29.04.2025, Annexure-G.

4. Pursuant to both these orders, a representation was given by the detenue dated 01.04.2025 before the Advisory Board i.e. detaining authority as per Annexure-C and the letter of respondent No.1 dated 04.04.2025, rejecting the representation is at Annexure-D. It is contended that, next, a notice was issued by the Advisory Board (respondent No.1), asking the detenue to be present before them for submitting his representations. Accordingly, the representation was given on 15.04.2024. Both the notice as well as the representation were placed before the Advisory Board.

5. It is contended that the respondents, particularly the detaining authority, along with the detention order dated 20.03.2025, did not supply the compilation of documents, which were relied upon for passing the detention order against the husband of the petitioner. They furnished only the copies of the detention order and grounds of detention, but did not produce all the relevant material considered for the purpose of passing the detention order.

6. It is also contended that the husband of the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 01.04.2025 requesting for dropping the proposal under the provisions of the Goonda Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), from Bellary Jail. Similarly, the petitioner also submitted a representation before the Advisory Board Committee, which was also rejected by respondent No.1.

7. Respondent No.1, without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act and without carefully examining the material on record, passed the order confirming the detenti