SRI ANAND HANUMATHSA KATARE versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI ANAND HA NUMA THSA KA TARE 
v. 
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] 
Karna/aka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bool-leggers, Drug 
Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers 
C Act, 1985: 
ss. 3(2), 3(3) and 13-Revocalion of detention order-Order of detention 
Approved by Stale Government-Thereafter, representation to detaining 
authority-Held, order of detention can be revoked only on the basis of a 
representation made to the appropriate authority-Detaining authority 
D becomes June/us officio the moment approval is accorded by State 
Government-In grounds of detention fi1rnished to detenu on the date of 
detention itself it was specifically indicated that if he wanted to represent to 
the State Government, he was lo submit the representation directly to the 
Government through the Superintendent of Jail. 
E 
A detention order under sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Karnataka 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, 
Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 
was passed on 7.10.2005. The detenu was taken into custody the same day 
and he was furnished with grounds of detention. The detaining authority 
submitted a report to the Government which, on 11.10.2005, passed an order 
F under s. 3(3) of the Act approving the detention. The order of detention was 
challenged in a habeas corpus petition before the High Court. Meanwhile the 
Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board which approved the 
order of detention. Accepting the said report, the Government passed an order 
under s. 13 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
G 
In the present appeal it was contended the that the representation given 
by the detenu to the detaining authority ought to have been referred for 
consideration of the State Government and the detaining authority should not 
have dealt with the same as it had becomefunclus officio the moment the State 
Government·accorded approval to the order of detention. 
H 
622 
-
SRI ANAND f!ANUMA Tf!SA KA TARE 1·. ADDITIONAL DlSTRICTMAGISlRA TE 
623 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Under Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous 
Activities of Boot-Leggors, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral 
Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985, the approval of the State 
Government is mandatory. A reading of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 
A 
Act make it clear that the order of detention under s. 3(2) becomes operative B 
the moment it is passed. But it ceases to be operative unless it is approved 
within 12 days. Therefore, the Detaining Authority becomes functus officio 
the moment the approval is accorded by the State Government It is to be noted 
that the order of detention can be revoked only on the basis of a representation 
to the appropriate authority. This fact is relevant. [628-E-G; 630-D[ 
C 
Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994[ 2 SCC 337, held inapplicable. 
Kamleshkumar Jshwardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors., JT (1995) 
3 639, distinguished. 
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, [2000) 7 D 
sec 463, referred to. 
2. It is undisputed that in the grounds of detention it was specifically 
indicated to the detenu that if he wanted to represent to the Government of 
Karnataka he was to submit the same directly to the Government through the E 
Superintendent of the Cetral Jail in which he was detained. (634-C) 
R. Keshavav. M.B. Prakash and Ors., (2001[ 2 SCC 145; Union of India 
v. Paul Manickam and Anr., [2003[ 8 SCC 342; Union of India and Anr. v. 
Chaya Ghoshal (Smt.) and Anr., (2005( 10 SCC 97 and R. Keshava v. M.B. 
Prakash and Ors., (2001) 2 sec 145, relied on. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 080 of 
2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.4.2006. of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (HC) No. 124 of2005. 
G 
K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
Udya Halla, A.A.G., Sanjay R. Hegde and Anil K. Mishra for the 
Respondents. 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S C.R 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the order of detention 
B passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, 
Dharwad city, directing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.