- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT PETITION NO. 108990 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MALA BHANDARI W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT: MANTUR ROAD, MILLATH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND SRI SAMIT PARVATIKAR, ADV. FOR SRI GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ADDL. DIST. MAGISTRATE, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY, HUBBALLI-580025. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 2. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY HOME DEPT. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KALBURGI-591108. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI/QUASH THE ORDER NO.CP/MAG- 2/HD/10/2025-26 DATED 03.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND ‘B’) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO.HD 294 SST 2025 DATED 10.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-C) AND CONFIRMED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO.HD 294 SST 2025 DATED 18.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-‘D’) AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) 1. This writ petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India at the hands of the wife of the detenu, raising a challenge to the detention order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad City invoking the provisions contained in The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘GOONDA Act’). 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Kiran S.Javali appearing for the petitioner submits that in paragraph number 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that the detention order at Annexure-A has been passed in English and Kannada languages, but again there is a variation between the two and both are contrary to each other. In paragraph number 9, it is stated that the grounds of detention are stated in English and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 Kannada languages, but again there is variance between the two. 3. More importantly, it is pointed out from the grounds raised that it is specifically averred that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were never furnished to the detenu. He is stated to have studied till third standard and he does not know the English language. Nevertheless, in contravention of the requirement of law and the directions issued by this Court and the Apex Court in many cases, the translated copies of the documents have not been furnished to the detenu. 4. In a subsequent application filed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025, the petitioner has clearly stated that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were never served on the detenu. No acknowledgement for having served the documents on the detenu is forthcoming from the statement of objections filed at the hands of the respondents. On the other hand, it is stated in the application that on further verification, it is found that the documents were served on a person by name Smt. Kirthi D/o - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 Kotaiah Gottemukkula, who is not related to the detenu. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these grounds are sufficient to set aside the impugned order. 5. Moreover, it is submitted that despite guidelines being issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru1, to enable the stakeholders to take note of the requirement of law, more particularly the manner in which the detention orders along with the documents relied upon should be served on the detenu along with translated copies, the detaining authorities are continuing to issue such orders without ensuring that clear translated copies of the documents relied upon by the authority are furnished to the detenu. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the statement of objections filed at the hands of the respondents, they have not met the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court need not go into other aspects of the 1 ILR 2019 KAR 1543 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 matter and may proceed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned detention order. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that in para No. 23 of the statement of objections, full details are given as to how the detention order and the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were served on the detenu. However, we find that in paragraph number 23 of the statement of objections, it is stated that the detenu was arrested at 02.00 p.m. on 03.06.2025 (wrongly shown as 2.00 a.m.) and the detenu was taken to KIMS Hospital for medical examination at about 04.45 p.m., and at 06.40 p.m. the grounds and reasons for arrest of the detenu were read over to him in the presence of his wife, Smt. Mala, and a close relative, Smt. Keerthi, and the signature of the detenu was obtained on the order. 8. However, on going through the records, we find that the statement of objections was filed at the hands of the respondents on 26.11.2025, after I.A. No. 3/2025 was filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2025. When clear statements are made by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in I.A. No. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 3/2025 that the documents were not served on the detenu and the signature of Smt. Keerthi was taken as acknowledgment for service of the documents, the statement of objections should have traversed the grounds raised in the petition and the I.A. The averments made in the writ petition as well as in the I.A. are not met. No documents are forthcoming along with the statement of objections to show the acknowledgment on the documents, whether it was acknowledged by the detenu or by Smt. Keerthi. 9. In the decision pronounced by this Court this morning in WP.No.108482/2025 in the case of Smt. Prathiba Talapati w/o. Davood Nadaf v/s. State of Karnataka by its Under Secretary, Home Department (law and order), this Court has issued elaborate directions having regard to similar arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner/detenu. 10. Having regard to the directions issued by this court in the case of Smt.Jayamma, this court has held that it is a matter of grave concern that the guidelines issued by this court in the case of Smt.Jayamma have not reached the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 government and the detaining authorities. We have noticed that cyclostyled orders have been passed by the detaining authorities. Illegible copies of the documents are furnished without translations. Having noticed the decisions in the case of Smt.R.Ramya Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.2 and Smt.Shruti T.K. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Davanagere & Ors.3 where the writ petitions were allowed while setting aside the detention orders only on the ground that the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenue, the writ petition in the case of Smt.Prathiba Talapati vs State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.108482/2025 was allowed. The Coordinate Benches have placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur & Ors. Vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hannan @ Anand & Another4 where it was held as follows: 2 WPHC No. 51/2022 dated 26.08.2022 3 WPHC No. 39/2023 dated 18.07.2023 4 (2022) SCC Online SC 1455 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 “17. It is well settled that right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. No doubt, this right is again subject to the right or privilege given by clause (6). At the same time, refusal to supply the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Although it is true that whether an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. What will be the effect when the detenue is deprived of effective representation or denial of supply of relied upon documents by the detaining authority has been considered by this Court in Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and Others as under: "6. The right to make a representation is a fundamental right. The representation thus made should be considered expeditiously by the government. In order to make an effective representation relating to the grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the detenue makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously. The detaining authority in preparing the grounds would have referred to the statements and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 documents relied on in the grounds of detention and would be ordinarily available with him -- when copies of such documents are asked for by the detenue the detaining authority should be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition will depend on the facts of each case." 11. Having regard to the law laid down, we are of the considered opinion that non-supply of the clear and translated copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority to the detenue herein, is enough to set aside the impugned detention order. 12. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned detention orders at Annexures-A and B dated 03.06.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17380-DB WP No. 108990 of 2025 iii) The consequential orders at Annexures-C and D are also quashed and set aside. iv) The 3rd respondent Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalburagi is hereby directed to immediately release the detenue Sri Manjunath @ Scientist Manjya s/o Krishnappa Bhandari from detention. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VB /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11