2006 (10) TMI 435 - SC - Customs

Whether the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage (hereinafter referred to as the detenu ) under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 valid?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order.
2. Impact of detenu's activities on public order.
3. Functionality of the Detaining Authority post State Government's approval.
4. Verbatim reproduction of Sponsoring Authority's proposals.
5. Non-supply of acquittal orders and forensic report.
6. Compliance with constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order:
The appellant challenged the detention order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985. The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant, who is the brother-in-law of the detenu. The detenu was taken into custody on 7.10.2005, and the grounds of detention were furnished the same day. The Detaining Authority submitted a report to the Government within 12 days, and the Government approved the detention on 11.10.2005. The Advisory Board also approved the order during the High Court proceedings.

2. Impact of Detenu's Activities on Public Order:
The appellant argued that even if the detenu is a boot-legger under Section 2(b) of the Act, his activities did not adversely affect public order. The High Court found no substance in this argument, holding that the detenu's activities were sufficient to justify the detention under the Act.

3. Functionality of the Detaining Authority Post State Government's Approval:
The appellant contended that once the State Government approved the detention under Section 3(3), the Detaining Authority became functus officio and should not have dealt with the detenu's representation. The High Court, referencing Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, held that the Detaining Authority does not become functus officio post-approval and can still entertain representations. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting that the Detaining Authority remains functional until the State Government's approval is granted.

4. Verbatim Reproduction of Sponsoring Authority's Proposals:
The appellant argued that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the Sponsoring Authority's proposals, which could affect the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The High Court dismissed this contention, and the Supreme Court did not find it substantial enough to vitiate the detention order.

5. Non-Supply of Acquittal Orders and Forensic Report:
The appellant claimed that the non-supply of acquittal orders in two cases and the forensic report on the liquor's fitness for consumption affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The High Court and the Supreme Court found that these documents were not crucial to the detention decision and their non-supply did not vitiate the detention order.

6. Compliance with Constitutional Rights Under Article 22(5):
The appellant argued that the detenu's constitutional rights under Article 22(5) were violated as he was not informed of his right to make a representation to the State Government. The High Court and the Supreme Court held that the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation, and the State Government appropriately dealt with the representation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Detaining Authority becomes functus officio only after the State Government's approval, and the detenu's failure to make a representation to the State Government did not invalidate the detention order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The detention order was deemed lawful, and the Detaining Authority's actions were found to be in compliance with the relevant legal provisions and constitutional requirements. The appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →