SRI ANAND HANUMATHSA KATARE versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS

SRI ANAND HANUMATHSA KATARE versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS

Under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985, once the State Government approves the detention order under Section 3(3), the detaining authority becomes functus officio. The order of detention can only be revoked by the appropriate authority, and the representation must be submitted directly to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Sri Anand Hanuma Thsa Ka Tare; Respondents: Additional District Magistrate and Ors
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court's Dismissal of Writ Petition (hc) No. 124 of 2005
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Detention Under Preventive Laws, Function of Detaining Authority, Representation Against Detention
Criminal Law Preventive Detention Detention Under Preventive Laws Function of Detaining Authority Representation Against Detention

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Anand Hanuma Thsa Ka Tare

Appellant

Additional District Magistrate and Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court's Dismissal of Writ Petition (hc) No. 124 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detaining authority becomes functus officio after State Government approval under Section 3(3) of the 1985 Act
  2. 2 Whether a representation given to the detaining authority after State approval must be referred to the State Government

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985, once the State Government approves the detention order under Section 3(3), the detaining authority becomes functus officio. The order of detention can only be revoked by the appropriate authority, and the representation must be submitted directly to the State Government, not to the detaining authority. The grounds of detention provided to the detenu clearly informed him of this procedural requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of Karnataka High Court affirmed
  • No relief granted to appellant