Karnataka High Court
Dharmaraj N Satpatii S/O Nijappa … vs The Commissioner Of Police on 21 May, 2026
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1 W.P.NO.100481/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.100481 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN W.P. NO. 100481 OF 2026:
BETWEEN
DHARMARAJ N. SATPATII
S/O. NIJAPPA SATPATII,
AGED: 48 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT: NO.104,
SADASHIV NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 024.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA, ADV.)
Digitally signed by
CHANABASAPPA AND
K KALLUR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Dharwad Bench
AND ADDL. DIST MAGISTRATE
HUBBALLI - DHARWAD CITY,
HUBBALLI - 580 025.
2. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
BY SECRETARY HOME DEPT,
VIDHANASOUDHA,
2 W.P.NO.100481/2026
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
CENTRAL PRISON, SAIDAPUR,
DHARWAD - 580 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, WRIT OF
CERTIORARI THE DETENTION OF SAGAR LAKKUNDI, S/O
BASAVARAJA LAKKUNDI, BY ORDER NO. CP/MAG-
2/HD/09/2025-26 DATED 02.06.2025 (ANNEXURE A AND B)
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO. HD 290 SST 2025 DATED
09.06.2025 (ANNEXURE C) AND CONFIRMED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO. HD 290 SST 2025 DATED
18.07.2025 (ANNEXURE D) AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO.
TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS DECLARING THE
ORDER OF DETENTION, THE ORDER OF APPROVAL AND THE
ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, AS ILLEGAL AND AB INITIO VOID.
TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS INCLUDING RELEASE OF THE
DETENU FORTHWITH. TO AWARD COSTS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.05.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
3 W.P.NO.100481/2026
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This writ petition is filed by a relative of the detenue
seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the
detention order dated 02.06.2025 in No.CP/MAG-
2/HD/09/2025-26 by the respondent No.1 approved by the
respondent No.2 by order dated 09.06.2025 and the
confirmation by the respondent No.2 dated 18.07.2025,
and further prayer to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus
directing the respondents to set the detenue at liberty by
releasing him from prison.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are
that, the detenue has been detained pursuant to the Order
of Detention passed by the respondent No.1 against the
detenue on 02.06.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka
Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Goondas Act‘) for
being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking
4 W.P.NO.100481/2026
activities punishable under various provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘) and Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and in order to prevent him
from further engaging in activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The said order was approved
by the respondent No.2 on 09.06.2025 and the same was
confirmed by the respondent No.2 on 18.07.2025. Being
aggrieved by the said order of detention, order of approval,
and the consequential confirmation of the said order, this
petition is filed.
3. Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, submits that the orders under
challenge are liable to be set aside solely on the ground
that some of the documents furnished to the detenue are in
English language and, as per the detention order, the
detenue has studied till second standard in Kannada
medium and is able to read only Kannada language. It is
further submitted that non-furnishing of translated copies of
the documents vitiates the detention order. It is also
submitted that some of the documents furnished are
5 W.P.NO.100481/2026
illegible, which violate the right guaranteed to the detenue
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to give
effective representation. It is also submitted that there is
no application of mind by the authorities in passing the
impugned orders. It is contended that the detention order is
vague, passed on irrelevant consideration. Hence, he seeks
to allow the petition. It is further contended that that above
writ petition challenging the detention order was filed on
19.01.2026 and the State has unnecessarily sought
adjournments which has resulted in delay in considering the
petition. Hence, he insists to pass the orders immediately,
otherwise the writ petition would render infructuous.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and set the detenue
free.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-State submits that the order
of detention has been passed after following all procedural
requirements and arriving at subjective satisfaction. It is
submitted that the detenue has been a habitual offender
with eight cases registered against him under various
6 W.P.NO.100481/2026
provisions of IPC and BNS. It is further submitted that the
detenue consistently engaged in the illegal activities and
caused public disorder and to prevent the same, the said
order of detention was passed. Hence, he seeks to dismiss
the petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the
respondents-State and perused the material available on
record. Having given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced on both sides and the material
available on record, the point that arises for consideration
in this petition is,
“Whether the impugned order of detention
dated 02.06.2025 passed by the respondent
No.1, the approval order dated 09.06.2025 and
confirmation order dated 18.07.2025 by the
respondent No.2 are sustainable under law?”
6. To appreciate the case on hand, it would be
useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act
and they are extracted as under for ready reference:
7 W.P.NO.100481/2026
“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.
(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
8 W.P.NO.100481/2026together 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.
8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to
persons affected by the order.-
(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of
a detention order, the authority making the order
shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days
from the date of detention, communicate to him the
grounds on which the order has been made and shall
afford him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order to the State
Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the
authority to disclose facts which it considers to be
against the public interest to disclose.
10. Reference to Advisory Board.-
In every case where a detention order has
been made under this Act the State Government
shall within three weeks from the date of detention
of a person under the order, place before the
Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9, the
grounds on which the order has been made and the
9 W.P.NO.100481/2026
representation, if any, made against the order, and
in case where the order has been made by an
officer, also the report by such officer under sub-
section (3) of section 3.
11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-
(1) The Advisory Board shall after considering
the materials placed before it and, after calling for
such further information as it may deem necessary
from the State Government or from any person
called for the purpose through the State Government
or from the person concerned, and if, in any
particular case, the Advisory Board considers it
essential so to do or if the person concerned desire
to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its
report to the State Government, within seven weeks
from the date of detention of the person concerned.
(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall
specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the
Advisory Board as to whether or not there is
sufficient cause for the detention of the person
concerned.
(3) When there is a difference of opinion
among the members forming the Advisory Board,
the opinion of the majority of such members shall be
deemed to be the opinion of the Board.
10 W.P.NO.100481/2026
(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board and
its report, excepting that part of the report in which
the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall
be confidential.
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any
person against whom a detention order has been
made to appear by any legal practitioner in any
matter connected with the reference to the Advisory
Board.
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.”
7. A bare reading of the aforesaid Sections
indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with
respect to any “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(g) of
the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,
pass an order directing such a person to be detained. Sub-
section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers the
District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to exercise
11 W.P.NO.100481/2026
the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of
the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the
Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by the
Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda
Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State
Government along with the grounds on which the order has
been made. The order made by the Officer under
sub-Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in
the meantime, the State Government approves it. Section
8 of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of
detention are required to be served on the detenue within
five days from the date of detention and shall offer him the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
order to the State Government. Section 10 of the Goonda
Act mandates that the order of detention made under the
Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Board
within a period of three weeks from the date of detention
order by the State Government along with grounds on
which the order has been made and representation, if any,
made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda Act
12 W.P.NO.100481/2026
provides the procedure to be followed by the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider
providing personal hearing to the detenue and thereafter
submit a report to the State Government within seven
weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned.
The Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion as to
whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of
the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board is
confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates that
the maximum period for detention is twelve months from
the date of detention.
8. The impugned detention order dated 02.06.2025
is passed by the respondent No.1 by recording the reason
that the detenue is aged about 28 years, a Gowndi by
occupation, and a resident of Sadashivnagar, Old Hubballi,
and he is rowdy-sheeter in Old Hubballi Police Station, and
is involved in criminal cases including attempt to murder,
assault and other criminal activities and he has created fear
in the minds of the people. To arrive at such a conclusion,
the authority placed reliance on the following cases;
13 W.P.NO.100481/2026
(a) Crime No.37/2019 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504,
506 r/w 34 of IPC.
(b) Crime No.123/2020 registered by the Old
Hubbali Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,
341, 307, 504, and 149 of IPC.
(c) Crime No.105/2021 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 41(1)(d), 102 of
Cr.P.C., and Section 379 of IPC.
(d) Crime No.39/2022 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504,
(e) Crime No.140/2022 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504,
506 r/w 34 of IPC.
14 W.P.NO.100481/2026
(f) Crime No.247/2024 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),
118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023.
(g) Crime No.277/2024 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 79, 109 and 190 of
BNS 2023.
(h) Crime No.42/2025 registered by the Old
Hubballi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),
118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 190
of BNS 2023.
9. The grounds of detention make a reference with
regard to the registration of eight cases referred supra
against the detenue from 2019 to 2025. The detaining
authority as well as the approving and confirming authority
have come to the satisfaction that the detenue is a habitual
offender and his activities have caused breach of public
15 W.P.NO.100481/2026
order and that he cannot be prevented under ordinary law
of land and hence, proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
10. In the light of the legal position referred supra as
well as the grounds of detention and the contentions
advanced on both sides, we are of the view that the order
of detention, approval and confirmation is required to be
tested by considering the primary contention of the
petitioner that the respondents-authorities have failed to
furnish the relied documents to the detenue in a language
known to the detenue and also that they were required to
furnish the legible copies to enable him to submit effective
representation to the authorities.
11. We have perused the documents relied by the
detaining authority while arriving its satisfaction as well as
the approving and confirmation authority. It is noticed that
some of the relied documents in the documents furnished to
the detenue are in English language and no translated
copies were made available to him. The order of detention
as well as grounds of detention makes a clear reference
that the detenue has studied upto second standard in
16 W.P.NO.100481/2026
Kannada medium and he is able to read only Kannada
language. We have also noticed that some of the
documents served on the detenue which were relied by the
detaining authority were illegible. We have also perused the
statement of objections filed by the respondent-State and it
has failed to substantiate the said contentions by rebutting
the same in their statement of objections or by placing any
material to that effect. Therefore, non-furnishing of relied
document in the language known to the detenue and
submitting of illegible copies affects the right of the detenue
to submit an effective representation, which is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
12. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan Vs. State
of Maharashtra1
“8. We do not agree with the High Court in its
conclusion that in every case communication of the
grounds of detention in English, so long as it continues
1
1962 SCC Online 117
17 W.P.NO.100481/2026
to be the official language of the State, is enough
compliance with the requirements of the Constitution.
If the detained person is conversant with the English
language, he will naturally be in a position to
understand the gravamen of the charge against him
and the facts and circumstances on which the order of
detention is based. But to a person who is not so
conversant with the English language, in order to
satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the
detenue must be given the grounds in a language
which he can understand, and in a script which he can
read, if he is a literate person.
9. The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of
movement throughout the territory of India and has
laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It
has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of
personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to
legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain
safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid
down in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. One of those
safeguards is that the detained person has the right to
be communicated the grounds on which the order of
detention has been made against him, in order that he
may be able to make his representation against the
order of detention. In our opinion, in the
circumstances of this case, it has not been shown that
the appellant had the opportunity, which the law
contemplates in his favour, of making an effective
18 W.P.NO.100481/2026
representation against his detention. On this ground
alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside
the Order of the High Court and the Order of
Detention passed against him.”
13. It would also be useful refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of
Manipur and Others vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan and
Another2 referred supra, the paragraph No.22 and 23 are
extracted below for reference:
“20. What will be the effect of non-supply of legible
copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining
authority has been considered by this Court
in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Union of
India, (1987) 2 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 328] as
under : (SCC pp. 234-35, para 1)“1. On 3-10-1985 the officers of the
Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B.20,
Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered
certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears
that the petitioner was not immediately available.
He was called and interrogated. He made a
statement which was recorded by the officers of the
Enforcement Directorate. On 19-3-1986 an order
for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri
M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,2
(2022) 19 SCC 509
19 W.P.NO.100481/2026Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner
was arrested on 16-4-1986 and served with a copy
of the order of detention. Grounds of detention
were served on him four days later. On 12-5-1986
he was produced before the Advisory Board. He
made a complaint before the Advisory Board that
the copies of documents which were supplied to
him alongwith the grounds of detention were not
legible and he also placed before the Advisory
Board a copy of a representation said to have been
made by him for supply of legible copies of
documents. There is a controversy whether this
representation was made on 8-5-1986 or 12-5-
1986. From the original files produced before us we
find that the representation was typed on 8-5-
1986, but actually signed by the detenu on 12-5-
1986. But that would not make any difference for
the purposes of this case. On 19-5-1986 the
Under-Secretary to the Government of India
conceded the demand of the detenu for legible
copies of documents and directed the Directorate of
Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents
to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was also sent
to the detenu and was acknowledged by him on 21-
5-1986. There is a controversy as regards the date
on which the legible copies of documents were
actually given to the detenu. According to the
detenu they were served on him on 1-7-1986,
whereas according to the counter-affidavit of Shri
S.K. Chowdhry, Under-Secretary in the Ministry of
Finance, the documents were supplied on 21-6-
1986. It does not make any difference whether the
documents were supplied on 21-6-1986 or on 1-7-
1986 since we find that even before legible copies
of documents were supplied to the detenu, the
detention order was confirmed on 14-6-1986. The
detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of
making a representation and there was therefore a
clear contravention of the right guaranteed by
Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled
to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is
now on parole. He need not surrender.”and later
in Manjit Singh Grewal [Manjit Singh
20 W.P.NO.100481/2026
Grewal v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 59 : 1990
SCC (Cri) 608 (2)] as under : (SCC p. 59, para 3)
“3. It appears that the appellant had asked for
certain copies of the documents which admittedly
were there with the respondent–Union of India.
Copies of the documents were supplied, but the
same were not legible. This position is also
apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this
case to go into the question whether these
documents were relevant or material.”
21. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ranu
Bhandari [Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, (2008) 17
SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 543] wherein it was
held in paras 27 and 31 as under : (SCC pp. 355-56)
“27. It has also been the consistent view that
when a detention order is passed all the material
relied upon by the detaining authority in making
such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to
enable him to make an effective representation
against the detention order in compliance with
Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of
whether he had knowledge of the same or not.
These have been recognised by this Court as the
minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive
detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not
become instruments of oppression in the hands of
the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal
proceedings which would entail a proper
investigation.
28-30.***
31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran
case [Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N.,
(2000) 9 SCC 170 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1198] it was
also made clear that there is no legal requirement
that a copy of every document mentioned in the
order has to be supplied to the detenu. What is,
21 W.P.NO.100481/2026
therefore, imperative is that copies of such
documents which had been relied upon by the
detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction
that in the interest of the State and its citizens the
preventive detention of the detenu is necessary,
have to be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this
case, the detenu’s representation and writ petition
had been placed before the detaining authority,
which according to the detenu contained his entire
defence to the allegations made against him, the
same may have weighed with the detaining
authority as to the necessity of issuing the order of
detention at all.”
22. Thus, the legal position has been settled by
this Court that the right to make representation is a
fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of
the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of
documents which has been relied upon by the
detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making
an effective representation and denial thereof will hold
the order of detention illegal and not in accordance
with the procedure contemplated under law.
23. It is the admitted case of the parties that
Respondent 1 has failed to question before the
detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were
supplied to him which were relied upon while passing
the order of detention, but the right to make
representation being a fundamental right under Article
22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective
representation, the detenu is always entitled to be
supplied with the legible copies of the documents
relied upon by the detaining authority and such
22 W.P.NO.100481/2026
information made in the grounds of detention enables
him to make an effective representation.”
14. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that
non-supplying the documents in a language known to the
detenue and supplying illegible copy of documents which
have been relied upon by the detaining authority deprives
the detenue from making an effective representation
guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
and denial of which results in violation of the procedure
contemplated under the law for passing an order of
preventive detention. We have also noticed that the
detention order would lapse on 02.06.2026. Hence, on this
ground also, we are of the view that the matter is required
to be heard on priority basis.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner though
raised other grounds to attack the orders under challenge,
we are not proposed to consider those grounds urged in
view of our aforesaid finding. We have also noticed that
that order of detention as well as consequential orders were
23 W.P.NO.100481/2026
assailed in this petition in the month of January 2026 and,
due to one or the other reason, the matter could not be
taken up and the counsel appearing for the petitioner
insisted the matter to be taken up for final disposal by the
Vacation Bench on the ground that the writ petition would
render infructuous if the consideration of the petition is
deferred further. Considering the said request and with the
consent of both sides, we heard the writ petition for final
disposal.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the orders of
detention, approval and confirmation under challenge are
contrary to law and require interference, and we are of the
considered view that the impugned orders are passed in
violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order of detention dated
02.06.2025 passed by the respondent
24 W.P.NO.100481/2026No.1, and the order dated 09.06.2025 and
the confirmation order dated 18.07.2025
passed by respondent No.2 are hereby
quashed.
iii. The respondents are directed to set the
detenue at liberty forthwith, if not required
in any other cases.
iv. Registry is directed to communicate the
operative portion of the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Dharwad,
forthwith for compliance.
v. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
KMS
CT: ASC
