The aforesaid order of detention was challenged before the High Court.
Fourthly, the orders of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court in respect of two cases were number supplied to him.
Subsequently, the detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention dated 7.10.2005 which were also supplied to him that very day.
The order of detention was passed on 7.10.2005 under sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Act and the detenu was taken into custody that very day.
The Detaining Authority submitted a report to the Government as required under law within 12 days from the date of order of detention, which passed an order approving the detention under Section 3 3 of the Act.
Several points were urged in support of the habeas companypus petition.
Secondly, the detenu had submitted his reply to the Detaining Authority who rejected the same.
The order of approval is dated 11.10.2005.
The said order of the Government was number called in question by the detenu.
Firstly, even assuming that the detenu is a boot legger within the meaning of Section 2 b of the Act, his activities cannot be companysidered as likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Therefore, subjective satisfaction was affected.
Thirdly, the proposals made by the Sponsoring Authority were verbatim reproduced in the grounds of detention.
Once the order passed under Section 3 2 has been approved by the State Government under Section 3 3 , the Detaining Authority became functus officio and any representation given to the Detaining Authority ought to have been transmitted to be companysidered by the State Government.
Fifthly, there was numberreport of the Forensic Department that the liquor sold or manufactured by the detenu was unfit for human companysumption.
The Government accepted the said report and passed an order in terms of Section 13 of the Act.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court the Advisory Board to whom the Government had referred the matter also approved the order of detention.
Primarily following points were urged in support of the habeas companypus petition.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage hereinafter referred to as the detenu under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 in short the Act .
Arising Out of S.L.P. Crl.
Non supply of order referred to above, rendered the order of detention vitiated.
2510 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The habeas companypus petition filed by the appellant who is brother in law of the detenu was dismissed by the High Court.
