Kerala High Court
Pranu Babu vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10614 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
PRANU BABU, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SURESH BABU, PRANOOBA NIVAS, ERUVATTY AMSOM,
MAMBARAM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 670741
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME (SSA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON 27.03.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10614/2024
..2..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is
detained in the Central Prison, Viyyur, pursuant to Ext.P1
detention order by the District Collector & District
Magistrate, Kannur. Challenging Ext.P1 detention order,
earlier, the brother of the petitioner had filed WP(Crl)
No.1087 of 2023, wherein the grievance was with respect to
the delay and non application of mind in passing the detention
order. It was also alleged therein that the detaining authority
was not aware of the fact that the detenu was already in
judicial custody. After considering all the relevant aspects on
merits, this Court dismissed the said writ petition by judgment
dated 19.01.2024.
2. The present writ petition is filed by the detenu
himself challenging Ext.P3 order dated 04.09.2023,
confirming Ext.P1 detention order under Section 10(4) of the
Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
[hereinafter referred to as, "the KAA(P)A"]. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 order, confirming
the maximum period of detention, was passed without proper
application of mind and without adverting to Section 10(4) of
..3..
KAA(P)A. It is one of the grounds raised in the writ petition
that for confirming the detention order, the detaining
authority had considered Crime No. 1708/2016 of
Koothuparamba Police Station, which was registered beyond
seven years. Further, it is submitted that the earlier detention
order was passed in 2012, which is prior to the amendment of
Section 12 of KAA(P)A; and hence, the maximum period of
detention that can be imposed is only up to six months.
3. On a perusal of Ext.P1 detention order, it is seen
that Ext.P1 is the third order of detention passed by the
detaining authority. The first detention order was for a period
of six months from 13.08.2012 to 08.02.2013 and the second
one was for one year from 02.04.2018 to 01.04.2019. Hence,
the case of the petitioner that the earlier detentions were
prior to the amendment, is against facts. Ext.P3 confirmation
order was passed on 04.09.2023, which was, admittedly,
served only on 25.10.2023. The earlier writ petition was filed
on 18.10.2023. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P3 order
was served only on 25.10.2023, it could not be brought under
challenge in WP(Crl) No.1087 of 2023. However, on a perusal
of the records, it is seen that during the pendency of WP(Crl)
No.1087 of 2023, Ext.P3 confirmation order dated 04.09.2023
..4..
was produced along with IA No.1 of 2023. Hence, the
averment of the petitioner that Ext.P3 confirmation order
could not be challenged in the earlier writ petition is devoid of
any merit.
4. On an analysis of the offences committed by the
petitioner, it is seen that even after detaining the petitioner
twice earlier, he continued to indulge in criminal activities
disturbing public order. In Ext.P3 order, the government has
carefully examined the matter with reference to the relevant
records including the opinion of the Advisory Board and come
to the decision on the ground of his activities being prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. However, there was a
delay in serving Ext.P3 order. In Mohammad Afzal Khan v.
State of Jammu and Kashmir [1957 KHC 572], the apex court
referred to a decision in Achchar Singh v. State of Punjab,
[Petn. No.359 of 1951 (SC)(A)], wherein the apex court
expressed the opinion that the omission to convey the order
made under Section 11 of the Indian Preventive Detention Act
does not make the detention illegal or result in infringement
of the detenu's fundamental right; and if that be the position,
under Section 11 of the Indian Preventive Detention Act,
which provides for the making of a formal order all the more
..5..
must the position be the same under Section 14 of the Jammu
and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, which does not in
terms require any formal order to be made. Ext.P3 order was
served on 25.10.2023 during the pendency of the earlier writ
petition.
5. The next question to be considered is whether the
present writ petition is barred by the principles of res
judicata. In Ramseena S. v. State of Kerala & Others [2024 (2)
KLT 240] rendered by us, it has been held that if the
substantial challenge is against the detention order, the very
same court cannot entertain writ petition even if new grounds
have been raised, as the court is precluded from reopening its
judgment challenging the validity of detention order which
has become final. Therefore, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
..6..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10614/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCKNR/7202/2023/SS1 DATED 19.06.2023
Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
19.01.2024 IN W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1087/2023
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.
2478/2023/HOME DATED 04.09.2023
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
09.11.2023 TO THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
