» .2-1:35:15; DEPARTMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQRI_E3«~.V_:
DATED THIS THE 15:11 DAY OF JUL'? 2003.. ' if
PRESENT
THE HON'i3LE MR. JUSTICE 1{.Sz.?§4EE:I::>'§:1f;m 4' é E
AND % .. .V ._ A V~.
THE I-E{)N'BLl3} MR. JUSTICE B.'éR.§§*{EN;vAsE
liF.P.(HC) Ne..z46;o7:
w.r.(Hcmo.146Io1 A
BETWEEN:
RMGOPAL MVARDA- _ %
3/0 LATE MANGILAI, M;'§RDA» .. % %
AGED46YEARS M
N04 SIDDANNA"LAI'IE
RAMANAPET (moss " V.
BANGALORE-'$3 - PETITIONER
(lésgrégfii: «KV§R'a1~£%%'%$.§';a;*1ALI & GIRISH B S,ADVOCATE)
Anm 'V
T? 'Vv. i'}V(}OVEI§PE"MEZ§$'F KARNATAKA
'BY P'R1NCi?AL_ SECRETARY
% W a i."HOi'v.'.E smmmmanw
.: VIEHANAASOUDHA
m.Nr5m..oi2E-1
':TE2;;i;D'p1§ CHIEF' SECRETARY AND PRINCIPAL
'SECREFARY TO GOVT op' KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDI-IA
BANGALORE1
%/
BY SM'? VATSALA WATSA
3 semen SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
BANGALOREJO0
(By :SInt Geetha Manon, AGA FDR A.
W.P.(I-IC) FILED U/A 226 85 227_%0F THE 'GQNSTITUTION 012'
INDIA BY THE ADV. FOR THE PETI'i?ION_ER PRAYING To ISSUE A
WRIT in THE NATURE 01?? HABEA--L:s%.c'@?RPUs 0?. ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR£)_ER OR I)iVRE'.,_t'3.TI'ON BECLARING THE
DEFENTION op SI-{R1 BALO0 ?Ar{::':»mR1¥AA.@*~23ALAJ1, s/0. SHRI
RAMBILAS PANCHARIA, Bf: "0r<::;E;f< rm ; SCF 2007 DATED
21.9.2007 (ANNEXUREW) AS '1L1;,EGAL..¢ND«Vyo1b ABINITIG.
W'..P.(HC) 1vo.1g1:r_}ar3_%2*1':j:_?:[ ~ "
MR MAHESH MUL<'.:{1J§If_I3.
sxo KUBERAPQPA MULGI)réD'j;.
AGED 32 YEARS . '--
NO.B[1:2,"K..H.B. (30.1-ONY:
" ' ..... V'
5.YELAHANKA "
(By.Sr.:i"KA :'ra'n'.V"'.'3_.'.'J§'V«raIi and: GIRXSH BSADV )
K :_ EMVERNMENT op KARNATAKA
BA'N.GALORE'-6_5~ I' PETITIONER
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SGUDI-EA
SANGALORE-O1
$5
passed after consuiting the Home Minister which is bad
in law.
8. in the petition averments, there was a efiegafien
that the statements of Shanthilal, Nemichand
Shanna have been recorded by the 'au€I1<:2rity seine» 7. n
have noi been placed before the
respondents 1 and 3 in the coun§é;rVbstatemei1't.denied
the said petition avexmenti-3 nor.eha1.re’~s§iétted t1fi3£1t”theV: same have
been furnished to the empowk’ –
9. 7.’_I’}:1e_ 2 iater on by an interlocutory
aiaplicationg ‘adVdi.1io11″al’eeunter statement wherein it is
admitted ‘that t1:.ie’-stgitemehtef Shanthjlai and Vikas Nemichand is
‘the has been farms’ bed to the empowered
allegation that the authorities Iecorded the
statement pf Bhegavathi Sharma is denied as false.
A. , ‘f’*Iie case file of the empowered authority i3 secured for
The order sheet pertaining to WP (HC) No.146/ ()7 reads
* :””ah.1::’.é:-
thus: –
“16) On considezing the documents and the screening
detention. of Shri Baioo
Panchariya is justified. Hence he may issue the
detention order U] s sway of the COFEPOSA Ac’i:.1 _ *
sd/–
(Vatsala Wzitséti ~~ f jj =.. f ~12 .
Prl. Sccmtaxyhto (‘reyt.”, % — ‘
con1mittee’s report, the
Home &Tra21sf;»ori’~.Ee.pt u 2
1?. Horfblc Minister for Homcv”; — app:gv¢d%.%< — v "
_ 4_ 'MB. pmgmhv 2
iv-iiaiistcr f()i'pIflIE;, Law, Lmsiice
l2ights*:a3;d'?ar13;.Aflairs"
11..VThe%§nfii¢§’:’§met% WP (HG) No.14?/O7 reads
()’ n._sin:_”..4cxamination of documents and
tlie Skzmening Committee, the proposal of
‘ . :._{‘)R.i’~. Kubeerappa and Shri Panchariya
‘ ” ‘Vanda: C1_OF’EPOSAis fully substantiated. Hence, he
the detention order U/s 3(1)(I) of
A ‘–4.__CG_.FEP3GSA for Shri Subhas Mulgund Kuberappa.
Sci] –
(Vatsaia Watsa)
Prl. Secretary to Govt,
Home 85 Transport Dept
16. I-Ioxfbie Minister for Home — Approved
Sdl –
MB. Prakash
Minister for Home, Law, Jusficc
Human Rights and Par1y.Afl’a.irs”
£2. The pmceedings in the order sheet flrxat
the empoweied authority has not exercised.’v_A’_’i.§s’
independently in passing the 1
otherwise diseiose that the 6II1p€)>VV§2IBdV43¢11:flf1OI’it§Ff1.1§i?§A.
the discretion to the Home to” ap_;;m=i«.- Hoxeder
detenfion. The imyugned Iexjder h”p’p’i’ova1 by the
Home Minister on 20.8.07 above material
would patently s3:_1:o1u~:%;;fl-lzxat authority
in getting the the Home Minister is
illegai aThe….p§e-titions are allowed. The
both the cases) are set aside.
The dete:£111es”‘2.=,_z_fe’ to. eet free forthwith if not required to
__be detaiifged in ‘other
V’ with the record, we are impelled to
obsei;ve”%Athai. :j)ract:ices and the procedures in vogue with URI
_éu.1f£horit’y the empowered authority are totally improper if not
Vie wish to make the following obsezvations for the future
M
14. The statements desirably are to be /41
narrative manner. In the present cast. the mannenof
recorded is not in a prudent manner. :i1_1usn”‘ste” excerpts-Vouf » _
the statement recorded is extracted hefeunf:let’:fjv 1 d ‘
“To the query whether on app1icaf;ion’V_ under”
DFRC to avail Customs” i)uty*~ .Exen1pt’i:m.
Scheme has been made-_ by Hansa
Agencies, Bangalore. E state’At3mt”‘no application
under DFRC 1t:ade~–..by”M/s Hansa
Agencies, Bangaloreg’ Balsji. and Shri
Subash Mulgund didnot ‘Benefit in
the entire..t:1″ansa{:I:ion”.2u1c1″‘Sl31_i ‘Bn?.aji did the
emzire treinsietefionséfot nae, as he’is~£ny brother.
To seen the sarees
ii::,_t11e–e.1_f.1m_1r1e oi-‘–M/’s Hausa Agencies
and exfp0:fted;i. state that I have not seen the
same.” .
15, The ntjoxfe steteiizent recorded is neither in a nanative
gfomn aevtguestion-‘–a;nswer form. It is desirable that the
” jeooxding the statement should do better to
dine .sfstenient in a proper style of narrative form. _
nsopnetimes iii; Inay he necessaiy that the statement may be
a quesfionranswer form by writing the question and
the question separately.
16. The sponsoring authority should submit all the
” necessary documents, which are relied upon to the Empowerizlg
%/
1}
Authority. Wltile doing so, the sponsoring Authoxitjttémake
the list of the documents furnished
acknowledgement to that eflect frori.i tl:ie’o£:}3ee
Authority to obviate the suspicion and
planting mateml documents the of the
detention order.
1’7. In t:he pzese1A1t authority has
surrezude-red its” the file to the Home
Minister to Smt Geetha Mellon,
Govt, ueiitntvnaitted that placing the file
before Home t.-ttppmval would not be illegal in View
of the pmvieions’ Section 1 1 of the COFEPOSA ACT.
‘~ cotiéidezafion, of the provisions of Section 11 of the
V.’-.Act,twe_fix:tti~ -the Government does have power to revoke or
order at any stage. But the discretion of the
elnthvlétj/s 11 of the Act is a separate and distinct
“gfuxisdigtiofi. The jurisdiction of the Empowexed authority u/s
t.ttt’3{‘1e):(i) of the COFEPOSA Act is a distinct jurisdiction conferred by
T to be exercised independently by the empowered authority
3 u 3 alone. in this case, the empowered authority has surrendered its
C://.
discnztion and acted as per the dictates 0f the Home A’
While passing the order, which is totally contrary to IawfV__I f1′ %
View the petitions are allowed.