1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

W.P.H.C. NO.107 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. NITHYA S.,

W/O. NAVEEN KUMAR N.,

AGED 19 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.312,

KOTHANUR DINNE,

J.P. NAGAR 8^TH PHASE,

BANGALORE.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER),

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

BANGALORE CITY,

BANGALORE.

2

3.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON

BANGALORE CENTRAL PRISON,

BANGALORE.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, A.A.G. ALONG WITH

SRI S.V. GIRIKUMAR, A.G.A)

* * *

THIS W.P.H.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 20-8-2018 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.11/CRM(4)DTN/2018 PRODUCED

AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS W.P.H.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner has called in question the

detention order passed by respondent No.2 dated

20-8-2018 in No.11/CRM(4)DTN/2018 and sought

for quashing the said order on various grounds.

2. There is no dispute that respondent No.2

has initiated the detention proceedings against the

husband

of

the

petitioner,

by

name,

Naveen Kumar N., and passed the detention order

3

on 20-8-2018. The detention order has been passed

on various grounds.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner though

taken up various grounds for quashing the detention

order, but ultimately, he concentrated on the ground

that the representation made by the detenu on

29-8-2018,

which

has

been

received

by

the

Superintendent of Prison on 30-8-2018, has not

been forwarded to the Advisory Board and there is

no consideration of the representation of the detenu

by the Advisory Board. Secondly, he concentrated

on the ground that, the detaining Authority, from

the date of detention has to submit the records to

the

Advisory

Board

within

three

weeks’

as

contemplated under Section 10 of the Karnataka

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers,

Drug-Offenders,

Gamblers,

Goondas,

Immoral

4

Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985, (for

short, ‘the Act’). The said provision clearly discloses

that in every case where a detention order has been

made under this Act, the State Government shall

within three weeks’ from the date of detention of a

person under the order, place before the Advisory

Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds

on which the order has been made and the

representation, if any, made against the order, and

in case where the order has been made by the

Officer, also the report by such Officer under Sub-

Section(3) of Section 3 of the Act.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General along

with the learned Additional Government Advocate, so

far as above grounds are concerned, have contended

that no substantial material has been placed by the

detenu before this Court in order to hold that those

5

grounds are valid and untenable. Therefore, he

requested the Court to dismiss the petition. He has

also produced the entire case file before this Court.

5. We have gone through the entire material

on record. On careful perusal of Section 8 of the

Act, the said provision says that when a person is

detained in pursuance of a detention order, the

authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,

but not later than five days from the date of

detention, communicate to him the grounds on

which the order has been made and shall afford him

the earliest opportunity of making a representation

against

the

order

to

the

State

Government.

Therefore, it goes to show that under Section 8 of the

Act, an opportunity has to be provided to the detenu,

if h