THOUGH THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE AS TO HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OR THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION, THE TIME TAKEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS INORDINATE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE: SAYS KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Mohammed Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(W.P.H.C. No.74/2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY stated that this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying for the vacation of the car order on 10.02.2022 stated by respondent no.2 in no.Mag/02/mgc/2022 which is produced at annexure-a and annexure-a1.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by
cancellation of the confirmation order dated 29.03.2022 received by respondent No. 1 in H.D. 53 of SST 2022, Bengaluru which is produced at Annexure-F in the interest of justice.
- d) A writ in the form of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to, in the interests of justice, settle the freedom of Mohammed Nawaz @ Pinky Nawaz @ Nawaz by immediately releasing him from prison.
- e) In the interests of justice, any other order or order may be made as subsequent
He heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned public prosecutor for the respondent. The brief facts of the case, as it appears from the records, that may be necessary for the purposes of handling this motion, are that respondent No. 2 issued a detention order dated 02/10/2022 pursuant to Section 3(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code. The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Smugglers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Catchers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (in short “the Act”) against a detainee on the ground that the detainee is involved in a number of criminal matters and who is released on bail, continued his anti-social activities that caused a disturbance of public order, and therefore to control his activities and prevent the detainee from acting in any way that threatens the preservation of public order, it is necessary to issue a detention order against him. The said detention order was followed by a correction dated 15.02.2022 and the detention of the detainee was shifted to Bengaluru Central Jail from Mangaluru District Jail. Thereafter, the State Government on 17.02.2022 approved the detention order passed by respondent no.2 and a copy of that order was served on the detenu on 18.02.2022 along with a paper book which contained the documents relied upon by the competent. authority when issuing a detention order. In accordance with § 10 of the Act, respondent No. 1 submitted an order and reasons for detention to the advisory council on 02/23/2022. The detainee filed an objection against the detention order dated 07.03.2022 to the Detaining Authority, State Government and Advisory Board through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bengaluru. The reinsurance authority rejected the said statement on 15 March 2022. The Advisory Board, after hearing the detainee and after referring to the consideration of the detainee’s representation, submitted its report on 23.03.2022 to the State Government stating that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detainee and on receipt of such report, the State Government in exercising of its powers according to § 12 of the Act, adopted a confirming order on 29 March 2022. Subsequently, on 06.09.2022, the petitioner filed this claim. While waiting for the proposal to be submitted, the state government considered the representation of the detenue and rejected it by resolution dated 09/20/2022. On November 5, 2022, the respondents submitted their statement of objections, in which they deny all the claims made in the proposal and claim that the contested detention order was issued in accordance with the law and the respondents met the requirements of the law. It is further stated that the petitioner figures in as many as 15 criminal cases which include offenses punishable under Sections 307, 302 IPC etc. and after being released on bail in the above cases he has continued his illegal activities and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition .
JUDGMENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY observed that:-
Since the representation of the detenue was not considered by the State Government within a reasonable time and was dismissed only after the filing of this writ petition, we are of the view that there has been a violation of the vested rights. after detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the continuation of the detention order is illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and we pass the following order. Writ Petition is allowed. Detention Order dated 10.02.2022 in Annexure-A & A1, Detention Approval Order dated 17.02.2022 in Annexure-C and Confirmation dated 29.03.2022 in Annexure-F are cancelled. We direct that the detainee/Mahammed Riyaz be released from Bengaluru Central Jail with immediate effect unless required in connection with any other case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR