Karnataka High Court
Smt. Roopa vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) No.37 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. ROOPA
W/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
TIMBER LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SENIOR
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
AND ORDER, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE BANGALORE CITY,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY,
2
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
4. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CCB, OCW [W], NO.95,
BTS BUS DEPORTMENT,
KSRTC COLONY, WILLSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560027.
5. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PRISON, RAMANAGARA -562159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJAS P., HCGP)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
DETENTION OF THE DETENUE BHARATH KUMAR UNDER THE
ORDER'S PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER
NO.04/CRM[4]/DTN/2025 DATED 16-01-2025 AT ANNEXURE
'A' WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE
ORDER HD26SST2025 DATED 22-01-2025 AT ANNEXURE 'D'
AND VIDE ORDER HD26SST2025 DATED 13-02-2025 AT
ANNEXURE 'F' AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB-INITIO AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMED FIT
AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
DIRECITNG THE RELEASE OF THE DETENUE FROM CUSTODY
AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)
This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed by
mother of the detenue by name Bharat Kumar N @
Gudde Bharat @ B K S/o Nagaraj aged about 25 years
(for short 'detenue') challenging the order of detention
passed by the respondents and also prayed to quash
them. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
a. To quash the impugned detention order
bearing No. 04/CRM\[4]/DTN/2025 passed by
respondent No.2 dated 16.01.2025 vide
Annexure A.
b. To quash the order of confirmation bearing
HD26SST2025 passed by respondent No.1
dated 22.01.2025 vide Annexure- D and order
bearing HD26SST2025 dated 13.02.2025 vide
Annexure-F.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the detenue being
a habitual offender was involved in serious criminal cases
such as attempted murder, extortion, assault, kidnapping,
threat to life, racketeering, rape, child sexual abuse
(POCSO), sale of drugs since 2016 by forming a group of
criminal associates and engaging in illegal activities,
violating bail conditions after being released on bail. Being
a nuisance to law and order, despite being prosecuted in
the criminal cases in which he was involved, he continued
to engage in illegal activities, made a habit of committing
criminal acts, and continued to commit criminal acts
repeatedly. The order of arrest issued on 16.01.2025 is
sought to be confirmed under Section 3(3) of the said Act.
02 cases in Hanumantanagar police station of Bangalore
city, 02 cases in Kempegowdanagar police station, 01 case
in Basavanagudi police station, V.V. Puram police station,
01 case in Basaveshwarnagar police station, 01 case in
Byatarayanapura police station and 01 case in Maddur
Police station of Mandya district, in total 09 cases have
been registered.
(i) The Hanumantha Nagar Police registered a
case in Crime No: 237/2016 for the offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 324,
326, 504 read with 149 of IPC which came to
be acquitted.
(ii) The Maddur police registered a case in Crime
No: 165/2018 the offences punishable under
section 397 and Investigation is completed,
Charge Sheet is filed and same is pending
before the Addl Civil Judge & JMFC At Maddur
in C.C. No:2639/2020.
(iii) The Kempegowda Nagar Police registered a
case in Crime No: 02/2021 for the offences
punishable under sections 307 R/W 34 of IPC
and Investigation is completed, Charge Sheet
is filed and same is pending before the City
Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore [CCH-
61] in S.C. No: 1465/2024.
(iv) The Basavanagudi Police registered a case in
Crime No: 157/2021 for the offences
punishable under sections 307 120[B] R/W
149 of IPC & 25-1[B] [B] Arms Act and
Investigation is completed, Charge Sheet is
filed and same is pending before the II ACMM
at Bangalore in C.C. No: 22435/2021.
(v) The Kempegowda Nagar Police registered a
case in Crime No: 139/2021 for the offences
punishable under section 229[A] of IPC and
Investigation is completed, Charge Sheet is
filed and same is pending before the 24
ACMM at Bangalore in C.C. No: 33705/2022,
which came to be closed after imposing fine
of Rs 2,000/-to the detenu.
(vi) The V.V. Puram Nagar Police registered a
case in Crime No: 04/2022 for the offences
punishable under section 20 NDPS Act &
25[1] [B] Arms Act and Investigation is
completed, Charge Sheet is filed and same is
pending before the City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bangalore [CCH-33] in Spl C.C. No:
1774/2023.
(vii) The Basaveshwara Nagar Police registered a
case in Crime No: 248/2023 for the offences
punishable under section 4, 6, 8 PASCO Act
& 376 IPC and Investigation is completed,
Charge Sheet is filed and same is pending
before the City Civil and Sessions Judge Fast
Track court-5 at Bangalore [FTC-5] in Spl
C.C. No: 2147/2023.
(viii) The Byatarayanapura Police registered case
in Crime No: 229/2024 for the offence
punishable under sections 109, 140[2],
308[5], 126[2] 115[2] 118[1], 351[3], 3[5]
BNS Act 2023, which is under investigation.
(ix) The Hanumantha Nagar Police registered
case in Crime No: 242/2024 for the offence
punishable under sections 189[1], 189[4][C],
191[3], 194 BNS Act 2023 4 Arms Act which
is under investigation.
3. Thus, in the cases registered against the
detenue, the rowdy list was opened and monitored and
despite being seized and remanded by the court,
without bringing about any change in his life style, the
detenue being in violation of the bail conditions and
opportunities given to him to lead a better life:
continuously failing to attend valid court hearings,
engaging in criminal activities and continuing to commit
criminal acts tending to destroy the welfare of the
society, being harmful to public order. According to the
Hooligan Act, it appears to be essential to maintain
public order and security in the metropolitan city of
Bangalore and it is reasonable to keep the said detenue
in preventive custody.
4. The respondents found that presence of the
detenue was causing disturbances to public order and
tranquility and he was becoming menace to the society.
Therefore, the detenue was detained based on the
detention order passed by the respondent No.2-
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru vide order dated
16.01.2025. Thereafter, the detenue had submitted a
representation dated 26.01.2025 to the Government for
reviewing the detention order. The Government on
considering the representation passed order dated
28.01.2025 rejecting the said representation.
5. The Government after obtaining the opinion
from the Advisory Board and following the procedures
under the Goondas Act, confirmed the order of
detention, by its order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure -
D). The Government by order dated and vide order
dated 13.02.2025 ordered to detain him for a period of
one year from 13.02.2025 (Annexure-F) under the
Goondas Act.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP
for respondents.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the orders passed by the respondent
No.2 as well as confirmed by the Government are illegal
and they are contrary to the provisions of the
Goondas Act. In terms of the Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Goondas Act,
it is mandatory to furnish the detenue not only with the
order of detention but also with the grounds of
detention and the supporting documents relied upon by
the detaining authority. Further, the Government cannot
detain a person under Preventive Detention Act for a
period of one year at a time, which is contrary to
Section 3 of the Goondas Act. The Government did not
place the material before the Advisory Board within 21
days and copies of the relevant documents were not
supplied to the detenue. Therefore, he was unable to
place his representation before the competent authority.
The fact that in most of these cases, the investigation
has been completed and the detenue is on bail in which
two of the cases are still under investigation was not
taken into consideration by the respondents. Hence, the
said order passed by the Government is illegal and
prayed to quash the same.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P. reported in
2014 AIR SCW 2811;
"14. Where the law prescribes a thing
to be done in a particular manner following a
particular procedure, it shall be done in the
same manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed
procedure. When the provisions of Section 3
of the Act clearly mandated the authorities to
pass an order of detention at one time for a
period not exceeding three months only, the
government order in the present case,
directing detention of the husband of the
appellant for a period of twelve months at a
stretch is clear violation of the prescribed
manner and contrary to the provisions of law.
The Government cannot direct or extend the
period of detention up to the maximum period
of twelve months in one stroke, ignoring the
cautious legislative intention that even the
order of extension of detention must not
exceed three months at any one time. One
should not ignore the underlying principles
while passing orders of detention or extending
the detention period from time to time.
In the case of Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. State of
Telangana reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367, it is held
in Paragraph 43 as under:
"16. While passing the detention order, the
detaining authority not only considered the
commission of offences committed by the
detenus and their associates, but also
considered its impact disturbing the "public
order" and also the modus operandi adopted by
them in commission of offences. Therefore, in
order to prevent the detenus from committing
similar offences, the impugned detention order
was passed."
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhotte v. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in
(2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 72;
13. A reference to the decision of the
majority view in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of
Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 361]
may not be out of context. In para 32 of the
judgment, Venkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship
then was) speaking for the majority observed
as follows: (SCC p. 36)
"32. ... When a person is enlarged on bail by a
competent criminal court, great caution should
be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an
order of preventive detention which is based
on the very same charge which is to be tried
by the criminal court."
Dhanya M v. State of Kerala and others
by its order dated 06.06.2025 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.2897/2025
The detention order do not ascribe any
reason as to how the actions of the detenue are
against the public order of the State.
In Smt. Madhuri Adiga's case (supra), the facts
of the case are different and the core issue in the
present case is that the said detention order was placed
before the Advisory Board with all the relevant materials
of the crime committed by the detenue and thereafter,
the Advisory Board had heard and reserved the matter
to pass its final opinion. During the pendency of the final
opinion before the Advisory Board, the detaining
authorities have confirmed the detention order. In this
case, the facts are different and the subject matter of
this issue is also different.
The facts of the above said cases referred by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to
the present case.
9. Learned HCGP has placed reliance on the case
of Puttaraju, since dead by its LR's Charan @
Kangli (Held).
"The District Magistrate as well as the
Government, after subjective satisfaction of the
materials placed before them, passed the
detention order."
10. The detention order does not reveal that it was
passed after subjective satisfaction of the authorities
and also said view was based on the facts of the case of
D.Aruna Kumari's case (Held).
"That the sufficiency of the materials
available to the Detaining Authority has to be
examined by the Court while considering the writ
petition or on behalf of the defendant. The Apex
Court or the High Court does not sit in appeal
over the detention order and it is not for the
Court to assess the value of the evidence
available to the Detaining Authority."
Union of India v. Dimple Happy
Dhakad reported in (2019) 20 SCC 609:
46. The court must be conscious that the
satisfaction of the detaining authority is
"subjective" in nature and the court cannot
substitute its opinion for the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority and
interfere with the order of detention. It does not
mean that the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority is immune from judicial
reviewability. By various decisions, the Supreme
Court has carved out areas within which the
validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested.
In the present case, huge volume of gold had
been smuggled into the country unabatedly for
the last three years and about 3396 kg of the
gold has been brought into India during the
period from July 2018 to March 2019
camouflaging it with brass metal scrap. The
detaining authority recorded finding that this
has serious impact on the economy of the
nation. The detaining authority also satisfied
that the detenus have propensity to indulge in
the same act of smuggling and passed the order
of preventive detention, which is a preventive
measure. Based on the documents and the
materials placed before the detaining authority
and considering the individual role of the
detenus, the detaining authority satisfied itself
as to the detenus' continued propensity and
their inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling
in a planned manner to the detriment of the
economic security of the country that there is a
need to prevent the detenus from smuggling
goods. The High Court erred in interfering with
the satisfaction of the detaining authority and
the impugned judgment [Dimple Happy Dhakad
v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 1104] cannot be sustained and
is liable to be set aside'.
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal
reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198:
"32. The power of preventive detention is
qualitatively different from punitive detention.
The power of preventive detention is a
precautionary power exercised in reasonable
anticipation. It may or may not relate to an
offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does
not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on
certain facts for which prosecution may be
launched or may have been launched. An order
of preventive detention may be, made before or
during prosecution. An order of preventive
detention may be made with or without
prosecution and in anticipation or after
discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of
prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive
detention. An order of preventive detention is
also not a bar to prosecution".
Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andra
Pradesh and others reported in (2023) 14
SCC 641:
"74. In the case on hand, the detaining
authority has specifically stated in the grounds
of detention that selling liquor by the appellant
detenu and the consumption by the people of
that locality was harmful to their health. Such
statement is an expression of his subjective
satisfaction that the activities of the detenu
appellant are prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. Not only that, the detaining
authority has also recorded his satisfaction that
it is necessary to prevent the detenu appellant
from indulging further in such activities and this
satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of the
credible material on record. It is also well
settled that whether the material was sufficient
or not is not for the courts to decide by applying
the objective basis as it is matter of subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority".
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana
reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587;
"59. ......... It is pertinent to note that in the
three criminal proceedings where the detenu had
been released on bail, no applications for
cancellation of bail had been moved by the
State. In the light of the same, the provisions of
the Act, which is an extraordinary statute,
should not have been resorted to when ordinary
criminal law provided sufficient means to
address the apprehensions leading to the
impugned detention order. There may have
existed sufficient grounds to appeal against the
bail orders, but the circumstances did not
warrant the circumvention of ordinary criminal
procedure to resort to an extraordinary measure
of the law of preventive detention".
60. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar
[Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3
SCC 14 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 361] , Hon'ble E.S.
Venkataramiah, J. (as the Chief Justice then
was) observed : (SCC pp. 35-36, para 32)
32. ... It is well settled that the law of preventive
detention is a hard law and therefore it should
be strictly construed. Care should be taken that
the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless
his case falls squarely within the four corners of
the relevant law. The law of preventive detention
should not be used merely to clip the wings of
an accused who is involved in a criminal
prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of
keeping a man under detention when under
ordinary criminal law it may not be possible to
resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the
material available is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions authorising
such detention. When a person is enlarged on
bail by a competent criminal court, great caution
should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of
an order of preventive detention which is based
on the very same charge which is to be tried by
the criminal court".
11. The learned HCGP submits that in order to
monitor his criminal activities, a "B" category Rowdy
Sheet was opened in K.G. Nagar Police Station on
08.01.2021 vide order No.CC/13/ACP-05/2021. The
Detaining Authority, after careful consideration, was
satisfied that ordinary penal laws were insufficient to
curb the detenue's incorrigible criminal conduct.
Therefore, exercising powers under Section 3 of the
Goondas Act, the Detention Order dated 16.01.2025
was issued as a preventive measure to ensure
maintenance of public order. Despite repeated warnings
by the Authorities, the detenue continued to indulge in
criminal activities, indicating his habitual tendencies and
failed to reform even after lawful intervention. It is
emphasized that persistent criminal activities of the
detenue posed a real and imminent threat to the even
tempo of public life and necessitated preventive
detention.
12. That all the procedures prescribed under
Goondas Act, were strictly complied with prior to
passing of the Detention Order. The detenue has been
committing the crime against the innocent persons. All
the offences committed by the detenue are heinous in
nature. He got released on bail in the criminal cases
registered against him and committed breach of
conditions of bail. The respondents after subjective
satisfaction of the materials placed before them passed
the Detention Order. There is no illegality in the said
Orders. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
13. The learned HCGP submitted office file of the
detention proceedings.
14. In light of the authoritative pronouncements
produced by the learned HCGP, he would contend that
reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
on the Cherukuri's case (supra), has been
subsequently overruled by the decisions of the Apex
Court. Hence, the reliance placed on Cherukuri's case
(supra) is untenable and misplaced in law.
15. We have gone through the entire material
placed before us and further concluded:
i) As per Section 3 read with Section 13 of
Goondas Act, the Government is competent to pass a
Detention Order for a period of 12 months at a time. If
the said authority is delegated to District Magistrate or
Commissioner of Police under Section 3(2) of Goondas
Act, then only such officers shall not pass the Detention
Order for a period of more than three months at a time.
Section 3 of the Goondas Act, reads as under:
Section 3. Power to make orders
detaining certain persons.- (1) The State
Government may, if satisfied with respect to
any bootlegger or drug-offender or gambler
or goonda or Immoral Traffic Offender or
Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate that
with a view to prevent him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, it is necessary so to do,
make an order directing that such persons
be detained.
(2) If, having regard to the
circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail
in any area within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a
Commissioner of Police, the State
Government is satisfied that it is necessary
so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct
that during such period as may be specified
in the order, such District Magistrate or
Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied
as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the
powers conferred by the sub-section:
Provided that the period specified in
the order made by the State Government
under this sub-section shall not, in the first
instance, exceed three months, but the
State Government may, if satisfied as
aforesaid that it is necessary so to do,
amend such order to extend such period
from time to time by any period not
exceeding three months at any one time.
(3) When any order is made under
this section by an officer mentioned in sub-
section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact
to the State Government together with the
grounds on which the order has been made
and such other particulars as, in his opinion,
have a bearing on the matter and no such
order shall remain in force for more than
twelve days after the making thereof,
unless, in the meantime, it has been
approved by the State Government.
Section 13 of the Goondas Act, reads as under:
Section 13. Maximum period of
detention.- The maximum period for which
any person may be detained, in pursuance of
any detention order made under this Act
which has been confirmed under Section 12
shall be twelve months from the date of
detention.
ii) Further, it is observed that, the detaining
authority has specifically stated in the grounds of
detention that the detenue was involved in serious
criminal cases such as attempt to murder, extortion,
assault, kidnapping, threat to life, racketeering, rape,
child sexual abuse (POCSO), sale of drugs since 2016 by
forming a group of criminal associates and engaging in
illegal activities, violating bail conditions after being
released on bail. Meanwhile, the detenue involved in the
following serious offences:
Sl.No Year Police Station Law suit Section of the Act Current stage
number
1. 2016 Hanumanthanagara 237/2016 IPC Section The case
143,147, 324, 326, acquittal
504 read with sec
2 2018 Mandya District 165/2018 397 IPC Will be in the
Maddur court
proceedings
3 2021 Kempegowda 02/2021 IPC Section 307 Will be in the
read with sec 34 court
Nagara proceedings
4 2021 Basavangudi 157/2021 IPC 307, 120(b) Will be in the
read with sec 149 & court
25-1(b) (b) Arms proceedings
Act
5 2021 Kempegowda 139/2021 IPC Section 229 Punishment in
the case
Nagara
6 2022 V.V.Puram 04/2022 Section 20 NDPS Act Will be in the
& 25(1) (b) Arms court
Act proceedings
7 2023 Basaweshvara 248/2023 4,6,8 POCSO Act & Will be in the
Nagara 376 IPC court
proceedings
8 2024 Byatarayanpura 229/2024 109, 140(2), The case is
308(5), 126(2), under
115(2), 118(1), investigation
351(3), 3(5), BNS
Act 2023
9 2024 Hanmantnagara 242/2024 189(1), 189(4)(c), The case is
BNS Act 2023 under
investigation
iii) The above cases are registered against the
detenue. The rowdy sheet was being monitored and
despite detenue being arrested and remanded by the
Court, without bringing any change in his lifestyle, the
detenue violated the bail conditions by not using the
opportunity given to him to lead a better life,
continuously failing to attend valid Court hearings,
engaging in criminal activities and continuing to commit
criminal acts, thereby tending to destroy the welfare of
the society and being harmful to public order. In view of
the above, to maintain public order and the security in
the metropolitan city of Bengaluru, it is reasonable to
keep the said detenue in the preventive custody.
iv) Preventive detention is advised to assert
protection to society. The authorities on the subject
have strictly taken a view that preventive detention is
advised to afford protection to the Society. The object is
not to punish a man for having done something, but to
intercept before he does it and to prevent him from
doing so. Such statement is an expression of his views
subject to satisfaction that the activities of the detenue-
appellant are prejudicial to the maintenance of the
public order not only that the detaining authority has
also recorded that it is necessary to prevent the detenue
from indulging in such activities and the satisfaction has
been drawn on the basis of the credible material on
record. It is also well settled that whether the material
was sufficient or not, is not the course to act by
objective basis subject to satisfaction of the detaining
authority.
v) The Commissioner of Police, as well as the
Government, strictly complied with the procedure before
passing of the Detention Order. Representation was
given to the Commissioner of Police on 26.01.2025, by
the Commissioner of Police as the decision is not relied
upon and recorded relevant reasons for detention and
his satisfaction for passing such orders. The
Commissioner of Police submitted the file
to the Government and the Government, by Order
dated 28.01.2025, confirmed the Order of the
Commissioner of Police. The matter was then referred to
the Advisory Board.
16. Section 12 of the Act, 1986 provides that
where the Advisory Board in its report is of the opinion
that sufficient cause exists warranting detention, the
Government may confirm the detention i.e., it gives the
appropriate Government the discretion to either confirm
or revoke the order of detention. But where the
Advisory Board in its report is of the pinion that no
sufficient cause exists for the detention of the detenue,
the same is binding on the Government, and the
detenue is forthwith required to be released. The
relevant observations read as under:-
"12. Action upon report of Advisory Board.
(1) In any case where the Advisory Board
has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient
cause for the detention of a person, the Government
may confirm the detention order and continue the
detention of the person concerned for such period, not
exceeding the maximum period specified in section 13
as they think fit.
(2) In any case, where the Advisory Board
has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient
cause for the detention of the person concerned, the
Government shall revoke the detention order cause
the person to be released forthwith."
17. Thereafter, on receipt of the opinion under
Section 12 of the Act, the State Government has
confirmed the detention order and continue the
detention of the person on such period, not exceeding
the maximum period of specified under Section 13 of
the Act. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances,
the detaining authority considered the materials placed
before them and after subjective satisfaction of the
same passed the detention order.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not
find any reasons to hold that the order of the
Government-detention authority is illegal or contrary to
law. We cannot sit as an Appellate Court on the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which
is not permissible in law as held in above referred
Judgments.
19. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant writ
petition (HC) and devoid of merits, the same is liable to
be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
Ct-ADP
