<p>The Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka said that a habeas corpus petition was not maintainable against the detention order and the confirmation order, passed under the Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985, (Goonda Act).</p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice R Devdas, said this while rejecting the habeas corpus petition filed by one Alisha, wife of detenue Abdul Razak Adur.</p>.<p>The deputy commissioner of Gadag district, the competent authority, had passed an order on January 30, 2023 to detain Razak, a history sheeter and also wanted in several criminal cases.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/entry-to-dharwad-district-hc-rejects-vinay-kulkarnis-plea-1211875.html" target="_blank">Entry to Dharwad district: HC rejects Vinay Kulkarni's plea</a></strong></p>.<p>The home department passed an order on March 2, 2023 confirming the order passed by the deputy commissioner. Meanwhile, the police arrested Razak in accordance with the detention order and sent him to Ballari prison.</p>.<p>The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that her husband was being kept under illegal detention. She also cited judgements wherein the courts had intervened in such matters. The Additional Advocate General argued that the Apex Court has specified that a writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when the detention or confinement of a person is without the authority of law and before issuing any writ of habeas corpus, the courts must come to the conclusion that the detenue is under detention without any authority of law.</p>.<p>The division bench noted that once a reasoned order is passed then obviously the detenue has a right to challenge that order, but that again would not be a writ of habeas corpus but would be more in the nature of a writ of certiorari.</p>.<p>“A writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is not maintainable. No doubt the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order of detention or order of confirmation, but that will be a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders through a writ petition.</p>
<p>The Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka said that a habeas corpus petition was not maintainable against the detention order and the confirmation order, passed under the Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985, (Goonda Act).</p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice R Devdas, said this while rejecting the habeas corpus petition filed by one Alisha, wife of detenue Abdul Razak Adur.</p>.<p>The deputy commissioner of Gadag district, the competent authority, had passed an order on January 30, 2023 to detain Razak, a history sheeter and also wanted in several criminal cases.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/entry-to-dharwad-district-hc-rejects-vinay-kulkarnis-plea-1211875.html" target="_blank">Entry to Dharwad district: HC rejects Vinay Kulkarni's plea</a></strong></p>.<p>The home department passed an order on March 2, 2023 confirming the order passed by the deputy commissioner. Meanwhile, the police arrested Razak in accordance with the detention order and sent him to Ballari prison.</p>.<p>The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that her husband was being kept under illegal detention. She also cited judgements wherein the courts had intervened in such matters. The Additional Advocate General argued that the Apex Court has specified that a writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when the detention or confinement of a person is without the authority of law and before issuing any writ of habeas corpus, the courts must come to the conclusion that the detenue is under detention without any authority of law.</p>.<p>The division bench noted that once a reasoned order is passed then obviously the detenue has a right to challenge that order, but that again would not be a writ of habeas corpus but would be more in the nature of a writ of certiorari.</p>.<p>“A writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is not maintainable. No doubt the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order of detention or order of confirmation, but that will be a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders through a writ petition.</p>