56 of 2005 and the same had been dismissed by order dated 6.10.2005 and there was numberchallenge to the same.
The detention order was passed on 26.5.2005 by the District Magistrate holding that the detenu was indulging in such activities which amounted to immoral activities as detailed in the Act.
It was specifically averred that detaining authority has number provided the opportunity of making representation and the right of the detenu to make such representation was number made known to the detenu.
The detaining authority and other respondents resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant had already moved the High Court by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P. HC No.
The order of detention was approved by the State Government and the Advisory Board.
The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was alleged number compliance with the procedure companytemplated under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
No.666 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP CRL.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed questioning detention of his brother Shri Shivalingappa hereinafter referred to as the detenu under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 in short the Act .
