1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

W.P.H.C. NO.51/2021

BETWEEN:

MRS. FARHANA

W/O SYED NAZEEM

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/A NO.35, VENKATESHPURAM

PILLANNA GARDEN 2ND STAGE

BENGALURU - 560 045.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY

HOME DEPARTEMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD

BANGLORE - 560 001.

3.

THE SUPERINTENDENT

BANGALORE CENTRAL PRISON

PARAPANA AGRAHARA

BANGALORE - 560 100.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, S.P.P-II)

2

THIS W.P.H.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE

DETENTION OF SYED NAZEEM S/O BYL NAWAB BY ORDER

NO.HD/BCP/CRM/PIT-NDPS/DTN/2020 DATED 30.09.2020

VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

CONFIRMED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ORDER NO.HD 34-

PND-2020 DATED 22.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AS

ILLEGAL AND SET THE DETENUE AT LIBERTY.

THIS

PETITION

HAVING

BEEN

HEARD

AND

RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDERS THIS DAY ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioner who is the wife of Sri Syed Nazeem

(detenue) has preferred this petition to declare the

detention order No.02/BCP/CRM/PIT-NDPS/DTN/2020

dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure-A) passed by second

respondent and confirmed by first respondent by order

No.HD 34 PND 2020 dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure-E) as

illegal and to set the detenue at liberty.

2.

Petitioner has contended that Section 3(1) of

the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'PITNDPS

Act') empowers the authorities specified thereunder to

3

pass detention order and the Commissioner of Police

namely, second respondent is not entitled to pass the

detention order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure-A). It is

further contended that there cannot be any delegation of

power to the Commissioner of Police to pass an order

and as such, order of detention is illegal and liable to be

set aside.

3.

Further grounds urged in the writ petition is

that under Section 9(b) of the PITNDPS Act, 'appropriate

Government' has to refer the matter to the Advisory

Board within five weeks and records do not disclose as to

who has referred the matter to the Advisory Board. It is

further urged that detenue was produced before the

Advisory Board through video conference for the first

time on 25.11.2020 i.e., after expiry of seven weeks and

five days as the detenue was under detention since

01.10.2020 and on account of reference not being made

to the Advisory Board within five weeks, same is liable to

be set aside. Grievance of the petitioner is that order of

detention has been mechanically passed and there is

4

non-application of mind and there is no material to

indicate that respondents have gone through the entire

material and derived substantive satisfaction before

passing the detention order. Hence, on these grounds

and amongst others as urged in the petition, it has been

prayed to set the detenue at liberty by quashing the

impugned orders.

4.

On being notified, respondents have entered

appearance and filed their statement of objections.

Refuting the contentions raised in the petition, it has

been contended that there is no error much less illegality

in the impugned orders passed and as such, they have

sought for dismissal of the petition. It is contended that

under Section 3 of PITNDPS Act, Officers competent to

pass orders have been specified and on the basis of

report dated 11.09.2020 submitted by the Police

Inspector, K.G.Halli Police Station, Commissioner of

Police, Bengaluru has passed an order under Section

3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. It is also contended that by

virtue of power conferred under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS

5

Act, appropriate Government has empow