H.A. Hammabba vs State of Karnataka

The order at Annexure ''A'' dated 16.5.2016 and the order at Annexure ''D'' dated 12.1.2016, are called in question in this writ petition.

The second prayer relating to quashing of the order dated 12.1.2016 (vide Annexure ''D'') does not sustain for consideration. in view of the fact that the said order is already confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.PH.C.No. 18/2016 decided on 28.3.2016. Hence, the second prayer is rejected.

Coming to the first prayer seeking quashing of the order of extension of detention period dated 16.5.2016 (vide Annexure A), Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned advocate for the petitioner argues that no sufficient grounds to extend the period of detention are depicted in the impugned order Annexure ''A'' and hence, the period of detention ought not to have been extended by the State Government. According to him, the order at Annexure ''A'' is mechanically passed and the same is as a result of non-application of mind by the statutory authority. He further submits that the wordings used in the order at Annexure A'' were drawn from the earlier order at Annexure ''D'' dated 12.1.2016 and hence, there are no fresh grounds for extension of period of detention. On these grounds, he prays for quashing of the order at Annexure ''A''.

Sri. D. Nagaraj, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the detenue has not changed his attitude and as the competent authority is satisfied that the detenue would indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of the society and public at large, the order of extension of the period of detention is passed.

The records reveal that the order of detention was passed by the Commissioner of Mangalore city initially under Section of 1) and (2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act. 1685 on 21.11.2015 with a view to prevent the detenue in acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The ground: of detention were also supplied to the detenue. The said order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City dated 21.11.2015 was approved and ultimately it is confirmed by the State Government on 12.1.2016 vide Annexure ''D''. While passing the order of confirmation Annexure ''D'' dated 12.1.2016, the State Government observed that the order of detention will be for three months making it clear that the said order of detention is subject to subsequent orders to be passed for extension of the period up to total period of 12 months. The order dated 12.1.2016 and the earlier order dated 21.11.2015 were called in question by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court in WPHC No. 18/2016, which came to be dismissed on 28.3.2016. Meaning thereby, the order of detention as well as the order of confirmation of detention were further confirmed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition. Subsequently, an order dated 18.2.2016 was passed by the jurisdictional authority extending the period of detention for further period of three months as per Annexure ''G'' from 21.2.2016 to 20.5.2016. Before expiry of the said order dated 18.2.2016, the impugned order is passed on 16.5.2016 (Annexure ''A'') for further extension of the period of detention for three months.

We are unable to accept the submissions of Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned advocate that the State Government has not assigned valid reasons for extending the period of detention and that there are no sufficient grounds to extend the period of detention. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order Annexure ''A'' dated 16.5.2016 is self explanatory. The impugned order at paragraph 3 clearly states that the Commissioner of Police (detaining authority) is of the opinion that the detenue should be detained for further period of three months, in as much as, there was apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that the detenue would indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In order to preserve the public peace, tranquillity and maintenance of public order, he opined that the period of detention should be extended for further period of three months. With this conclusion, he forwarded the papers to State Government with a request to extend the order of detention. The State Government having perused the report of the Commissioner of Police, is satisfied that the period of detention should be extended for further period of three months. Based on such satisfaction, the impugned order at Annexure ''A'' is passed. We hasten to add here itself that the period of detention does not exceed total period of 12 months.

The State Government being satisfied about the report of the Commissioner that the detenue, if released, would be indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as detention of the detenue is in the interest of society at large, has passed the impugned order of extension of time of detention. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in such matters to decide as to the correctness or otherwise of the satisfaction of the concerned authority.

Be that as it may. Since we find that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order, petition fails and the same stands dismissed.