IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

Transcription

1 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL 2016 PRESENT R THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR BETWEEN : SMT.SUREKHA DEEPAK SHINTRE AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GORAKSHA MAL, SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. (BY SRI M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)... PETITIONER AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOKAK SUB-DIVISION, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, SANKESHWAR, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. PATIL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

2 -2- THIS W.P.(H.C.) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF THE HABEAS-CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO TAKE STEPS TO PRODUCE DEEPAK SHIVAJI SHINTRE, HUSBAND OF PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND THEREAFTER HE BE SET AT LIBERTY BY SETTING ASIDE THE DETENTION ORDER DATED: BEARING NO.DC/POL/G-ACT/CR/03/ BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BELAGAVI. THIS W.P.(H.C.) COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): O R D E R 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Deepak Shivaji Shintre (aged 44 years), is challenging the following three orders of detention: (i) order dated (Annexure-A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Belagavi, in exercise of the power under Section 3(1) & 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 ( the Act ), (ii) order dated (Annexure-F) passed by the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act, approving the aforesaid order of detention dated , and (iii) order dated (Annexure-G) passed by the State Government under Sections 12(1) & 13 of

3 -3- the Act confirming and continuing the aforesaid detention order dated for a period of twelve months, subject to review of the detention at every three months. This order is passed on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board dated stating that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The aforesaid detention orders are made in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Act, to prevent the detenu who is stated to be a gambler, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. In short, the case of the State is that the detenu runs Mataka gambling, ruining poor people (Labour class) who indulge in Mataka with the hope of getting prize money. It is difficult to prevent his mataka gambling activities under normal laws. Hence, his preventive detention. 5. As stated above, in the detention order dated , maximum period of detention is stated as

4 -4- twelve months from , subject to review of continuation of the detention at every three months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, urged the following three contentions: (i) No period of detention is stated in the impugned detention orders, and hence, are unsustainable in law. (ii) The grounds for detention are not sufficient to order detention of the detenu. (iii) There is no live link between the last act alleged to have been committed by the detenu on and the date of the detention order i.e In support of his aforesaid contentions, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2014 SC 2090]; 2. Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur [(2012)2 SCC 176]; and 3. Rekha v. State of T.N. [(2011)5 SCC 244]. 7. Learned Government Advocate, by referring to the Statement of objections of the respondents dated and the affidavit of the Circle Inspector of Police dated , refuted the aforesaid contentions stating that, in the order of detention dated , the period of detention is stated as twelve months which is permitted

5 -5- under Section 13 of the Act. The detention is fully justified by the grounds for detention, and that, there is live link between the last act alleged against the detenu and the date of the order of detention. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of the impugned orders, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Yashoda vs. Secretary (Home Department) & Others [ILR 2015 KAR 4441]; 2. Gajji Veeresh vs. The Secry, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of Kar., & Ors., [ILR 2015 KAR 891]; 3. T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1990 SC 1086] 8. We have examined the matter in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned counsel on both sides. 9. To examine the contentions urged, it is relevant to refer to the following provisions of the Act: S.2(f) "gambler" means a person, who commits or abets the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1964) including an offence of gambling relatable to "matka" and punishable under the said Chapter; S.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.

6 -6- (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. 10. It is also necessary to refer to the Detention Order dated (Annexure-A) which reads as follows: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Office of the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Belagavi No.DC/POL/G-ACT/CR/03/ Date:04/02/2016 DETENTION ORDER Where as I, N. Jayaram, I.A.S. District Magistrate, Belagavi District, am fully convinced that Sri Deepak Shivaji Shintre. aged 44 years, R/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar, Tq-Hukkeri, Dist: Belagavi, is indulging in activities of Gambling (Matka) and creating law and order problems and his activities have also affected the public order adversely. I am also fully convinced that his activities of Matka Gambling are coming under the definition of section 2(f) of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or

7 -7- Audio piracy Act His activities are detrimental to public order. It is very much necessary to detain him under the above said act so as to prevent his illegal activities. In view of the above mentioned reasons & in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, slum grabbers and Video or Audio piracy Act-1985 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 and Government Order No.HD/72/SST/2013 Dated , I, N. Jayaram, I.A.S. District Magistrate, Belagavi hereby direct that Sri. Deepak Shivaji Shintre aged 44 years, R/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar Tq- Hukkeri, Dist: Belagavi, be detained as an ordinary prisoner in the Parappan Agrahar Central Prison, Bangalore. This order is issued under my hand and seal this day 4 th of February Sd/- N. JAYARAM I.A.S. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Belagavi. To Sri Deepak Shivaji Shintre aged 44 years, R/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar, Tq-Hukkeri, Dist:Belagavi. Along with grounds of detention The grounds for detention dated (Annexure-B) reads as follows: It is informed to you that you have been detained under sub section 2 of section 3 and 8 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drugoffenders, Gamblers Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, slum grabbers and Video or Audio pirates Act 1985 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985) for the following reasons. The following 12 cases are booked against you in Sankeshwar Police Station in matka gambling since 2010 to 2015 : 1. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No-240/2010 u/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1145 hours, Sri P.R. Gangenahalli, PSI Sankeshwar P.S received credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Srikrishna Hotel

8 -8- in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the said spot along with his staff CPC 2333, 1000, and two panchas & reached the spot at 1200 hrs, and watched for some time & then conducted raid at 12:15 hrs & caught 3 persons named 1. Sayyadali Dastgeersab Phaniband of Gorakshan Mal Sankeshwar. 2. Mahesh Ningappa Bhovi r/o Sansuddi Galli Sankeshwar 3. Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal Sankeshwar. The PSI has seized a stake amount of Rs.365/- and matka chits and other materials for organising matka. Three persons were arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No-452/2010. The case was convicted and Fined Rs.500/- each on Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No-05/2012 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On Sri A.P. Hosamani, ASI Sankeshwar P.S has received a credible information at 1045 hrs, some people were playing matka gambling near Nanda Deep Gorakshan Mala. He has gone to the said spot along with CPC 1837, 2623 and two panchas reached the spot at 1110 hrs. Watched and conducted raid and caught 2 persons named 1. Manohar Shivaji Shintre r/o Sankeshwar Gorakshan Mal 2. Satish Ashok Shintre r/o Sankeshwar Gorakshan Mal and one person has escaped, his name is Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Sankeshwar Gorakshan Mal. The ASI has seized the stake amount of Rs.439/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. The said accused was arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet against two persons was placed before J.M.F.C. court, Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No-10/2012. The case was convicted and Fined Rs.300/- each on Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 159/2012 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act. On at 1130 hrs, Sri P.R. Gangenahalli PSI Sankeshwar P.S. received credible information that some people were playing mataka gambling near Gadahinglaj Over bridge in sankeshwar town. He has gone to he said spot along with his staff CPC 1000, 1837, 2521 and two Panchas reached the spot at 1155 hrs, and watched for some time & then conducted raid at 1210 & caught 1 person named Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar and two persons namely 1. Balu Kolekar r/o Sankeshwar 2. Kapil Kolekar r/o Sankeshwar have escaped. The PSI has seized the stake amount of Rs.750/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. Three persons arrested and brought before the court.

9 -9- Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No- 506/2012. The case is still pending trial. 4. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 193/2012 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1905 hrs, Sri P.R. Gangenahalli PSI Sankeshwar P.S. received credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Hitani Naka in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the said spot along with his staff CPC 1000, 2092 and two panchas reached the spot at 1925 hrs, and watched some time then conducted raid at 1930, caught 1 person named Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal Sankeshwar. The PSI has seized the stake amount of Rs.510/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. PSI asked the accused that to whom matka chits & money will be given. The accused said the name of Chandu Bhovi r/o Sankeshwar. Two persons were arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No- 549/2012. The case is still pending trial. 5. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 93/2013 U/s 107, 151 CRPC In Sankeshwar Police Station rowdy Sheet of Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar is maintained. On at the time of Vidhan Sabha election 2013 the above person was forcing to vote for a particular political party. Hence the precautionary measure was taken against him. Registered the crime and produced him before the Executive Magistrate, Hukkeri who took undertaking from the accused for good behaviour. 6. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 207/2013 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1205 hrs, Sri R.H. Ballari PSI Sankeshwar P.S. received credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Cattle market in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the said spot along with his staff CPC 1000, 1984, 2521, 772 and two panchas reached the spot at 1220 hrs, and watched for some time then conducted raid at 1230, caught 1 person named Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar. The PSI has seized a stake amount of Rs.445/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. One person was arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No-497/2013. The said is still pending trial.

10 Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 338/2013 U/s 107 CRPC In sankeshwar Police Station rowdy Sheet is maintained in respect of Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar. On , at the time of Belagavi winter session of Karnataka legislature, the above person was planning to threaten the public during the Mahamelava organized by MES party. Hence the precautionary measure was taken against him. Registered the crime and produced him before the Executive Magistrate, Hukkeri who took undertaking from the accused for good behavior. 8. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No-23/2014 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1730 hrs, Sri Y.M. Navalagatti PSI Sankeshwar P.S. received credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Gadahinglaj Cross in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the spot along with his staff CHC 1078 CPC 1984, 1628, 772 and two panchas & reached the spot at 1750 hrs, and watched for some time & then conducted raid at 1800 hrs, caught 1 person named Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar. The PSI has seized the stake amount of Rs.75/- and mataka chits and other materials for organizing mataka. One person was arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No-245/2014. The case is still pending trial. 9. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 90/2014 U/s 107 CRPC In sankeshwar Police Station rowdy Sheet maintained of Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar. On at the time of Lok Sabha election 2014 the above person was forcing the public to vote for a particular political party. Hence the precautionary measure was taken against him. Registered the crime and produced him before the Executive Magistrate, Hukkeri who took undertaking from the accused for good behavior. 10. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No-190/2014 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1530 hrs, Sri Kumar Hittalmani, PSI (L & O) Sankeshwar P.S. received a credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Ashok Plaza in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the said spot along with his staff CPC 790, 2735, 3042 and two panchas, reached the spot at 1555 hrs & watched for some time & then conducted raid at They caught 1 person named Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar.

11 -11- The PSI has seized the stake amount of Rs.240/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. One person was arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court, Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No-353/2014. The case is still pending trial. 11. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 118/2015 U/s 78(3) Karnataka Police Act On at 1630 hrs, Sri Kumar Hittalmani, PSI Sankeshwar P.S. received credible information that some people were playing matka gambling near Jyoti Bazar in sankeshwar town. He has gone to the said spot along with hi staff CHC 1889 CPC 1984, 2521, 1230 and two Panchas reached the spot at 1650 hrs, and watched for some time & then conducted raid at 1700 hrs & caught 2 person namely 1. Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar, 2. Baburao mallappa Gasti r/o Sankeshwar Maddi Galli. The PSI has seized the stake amount of Rs.570/- and matka chits and other materials for organizing matka. Two persons were arrested and brought before the court. Chargesheet was placed before J.M.F.C. court Sankeshwar. The said case was taken on the file of court in CC No.440/15. The case is still pending trial. 12. Sankeshwar P.S. Cr No 164/2015 U/s 107 CrPC In Sankeshwar Police Station rowdy Sheet is maintained of Deepak Shivaji Shintre r/o Gorakshan Mal Sankeshwar. On at the time of Gram Panchayat election 2015 the above person was forcing the public to vote for a particular person. Hence the precautionary measure was taken against him under sankeshwar police station Cr. No.164/15 u/s 107 CrPC. The above 12 Cases were booked against you. The Hon ble court convicted you in 02 cases and 06 cases are under trial. Four cases booked U/s 107 CrPC, of which in 03 cases you have given undertaking for good behavior before the Executive Magistrate, Hukkeri and 01 case is still under trial. On perusal of the above police records, it is clear that you are the resident of Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar and you are involved in many cases booked at Sankeshwar Police Station. You are frequently indulging in an offence u/s 78 Clause (iii) & 87 KA Act (Chapter VII of the of Karnataka Police Act, 1963) and creating a nuisance to the general public of the same area, which adversely affects the public order. In spite of police watch on you and though you have been warned for good behavior from time to time you are habitually committing offences and creating

12 -12- nuisance in the minds of residents of Sankeshwar limits in Hukkeri taluka of Belagavi district. Moreover, you are a Rowdy Sheeter in Sankeshwar Police Station. The behaviour which you have continued may probably lead to a disturbance to the public life, peace and tranquility at any moment & for which the police has requested me to pass orders under the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Immoral Traffic Offenders, slum Grabbers and Video or Audio piracy Act (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985). On perusal of the above cited cases, it reveals that you have committed the following offences: 1. The offences committed by you are punishable under chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and hence you are a Gambler as defined by section 2(f) of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio piracy Act The offences committed by you have caused harm, danger and feeling of nuisance among the general public and hence public order is deemed to have been adversely affected. 3. The above offences committed by you also go to demonstrate the fact that you have been in the habit of committing offences with unflinching regularity which proves that you are a Gambler as defined by section 2(f) of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio piracy Act The offences you have been committing regularly in the above noted cases goes to prove that you are not amenable to the ordinary laws of the land and you have been acting in a manner pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order. A perusal of all the above incidents indicates that you are not amenable to the ordinary laws of the land. Thus after application of my mind to the facts of the case as analysed above, I am fully convinced that it is necessary to detain you under the Act. Hence, I have passed the detention order. If you desire to make any representation before me against the said order of detention, you may do so and submit it through the Superintendent, Parappan Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru.

13 -13- If you desire to make any representation against the said order of detention to the Government of Karnataka you may do so through the Superintendent, Parappan Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru. You are informed that the state Government shall within three weeks from the date of your detention, make a reference to and place the requisite material before the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drugoffenders, Gamblers, Immoral Traffic Offenders, slum Grabbers and Video or Audio piracy Act 1985 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985), to enable the Advisory Board to make a report whether in its opinion there is sufficient cause for your detention. The Advisory Board is required to make a report to Government within seven weeks from the date of your detention. You are also hereby informed that if you wish to make any representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order, you may do so and address it to the Chairman, Advisory Board constituted under the said Act, and submit it through Superintendent, Parappan Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru, where you are detained. You are further informed that the Advisory Board shall hear you in person in due course if the Board considers it essential to do so or if you so desire. If you desire to be heard in person by the Advisory Board, you may intimate your desire to the Government through the Superintendent, Parappan Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru, where you are detained. So that the Advisory Board will be intimated about it and the arrangements will be made to produce you before the Advisory Board, on the date fixed by it for the purpose. If you desire to be represented through a friend or an agent before the Advisory Board, you may intimate his name to the under signed through the Superintendent, Parappan Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru & the same will be intimated to the Advisory Board. You may also keep your friend ready to appear before the Advisory Board on the date to be notified to you. Your friend or agent should not be a legal practitioner or a comrade in the trade. Sd/- N. Jayaram I.A.S. Deputy commissioner & District Magistrate Belagavi. To Sri Deepak Shivaji Shintre aged about 44 years, r/o Gorakshan Mal, Sankeshwar. Tq-Hukkeri, District Belagavi.

14 The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no period of detention is stated in the two initial orders of detention dated and and no specific period is mentioned in the final order of detention dated Hence, the orders are violative of Section 3(2) of the Act. In our opinion, there is no need to specify the period of detention in the initial order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Act as the period is inbuilt under the provisions of the Act. If the order is passed by any of the two officers referred to in Section 3(2), the order shall not remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. If the order is approved by the State Government or if the initial order is made by the State Government itself, the said order may remain in force till the State Government passes an order under Section 12 of the Act, on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board. The State Government shall within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the Act, refer the matter to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has to submit its report within

15 -15- seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned, and soon thereafter, the State Government shall pass an order under Section 12 of the Act. Hence, for initial orders of detention, the period of detention is statutorily inbuilt under Sections 3, 10, 11 & 12 of the Act. If the order of detention is confirmed and continued by the State Government under Section 12(1) of the Act, on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board, the said order shall state the period of detention, not exceeding the maximum period specified in Section 13 which is twelve months from the date of detention. 13. With regard to stipulating the period of detention in the detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 3(2) of the Act. The reference is inappropriate. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act does not deal with the period of detention at all. By the said sub-section, the Legislature has conferred power on the State Government to permit the two officers referred to therein to exercise the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. It is relevant to state that only Section

16 of the Act deals with the period of detention. It lays down the maximum period of detention; it reads as follows: 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. The maximum period for which any person referred to in Section 3(1) of the Act may be detained, pursuant to a detention order confirmed under Section 12 of the Act, shall be twelve months from the date of detention. It could be for any period upto twelve months but it shall not exceed the period of twelve months from the date of detention. 14. The period of detention is stated in the order of detention dated (Annexure-G) passed under Section 12(1) of the Act as twelve months from , subject to review of the detention at every three months as to whether the detention should be continued or not. 15. In view of the above, the first contention is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. 16. The second contention is that the grounds for detention are not sufficient for ordering detention of the

17 -17- detenu. It is a settled law that Courts cannot enquire into the sufficiency of the grounds to justify the detention. However, as could be seen from the grounds for detention extracted above, it cannot be said that the grounds do not warrant detention under the Act. 17. The third and the last contention is that there is no live link between the last act alleged to the detenu and the order of detention. This also cannot be accepted. Among the several past acts alleged against the detenu from the year 2010, the last gambling act relatable to mataka was on and the order of detention is dated On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was no proximity between the acts of the detenu referred to in the grounds of detention and the order of detention. The decision of the Supreme Court in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur [(2012)2 SCC 176] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in the said case, the detention order was passed almost 12 years after the last FIR relied on by the detaining authority.

18 All the three contentions, as stated above, are devoid of merit. The detenu is a gambler as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. In our opinion, the orders of detention impugned herein are in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm