Kerala High Court
Devika vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA,
1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 962 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DEVIKA
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KEERIYAD HOUSE, VELLIYAMPURAM,
TANUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676320
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
SINISHA JOSHY
RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
ANN MARY ANSEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
2
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN -
682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 670004
BY SRI ANAS K A, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
3
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of Rahul ('detenu', for the sake of
brevity). He was ordered to be preventively detained on the strength of an order
dated 22.03.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Malappuram under Section
3(1) r/w. Section 13(2)(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
2007 ('KAAP Act' for brevity). For the purpose of classifying the detenu as a
'known rowdy', 12 crimes were taken note of by the detaining authority. The
records reveal that the detention order was approved by the Government on
05.04.2024 and an opinion from the Advisory Board was sought. The opinion
from the Advisory Board was received on 17.05.2024 and based on the same, the
detention order was confirmed by order dated 03.06.2024. Challenging the order
of detention, the petitioner herein approached this Court and filed W.P.(C.)
No.710/2024 on 28.06.2024. This Court, after hearing the contentions raised by
the petitioner as well as the stand taken by the respondents, dismissed the writ
petition by order dated 14.08.2024. In the said writ petition, the following
contentions were raised by the writ petitioner to assail the order of detention:-
i) It is not clear from Ext.P1 order that there had been
compliance of the requirements of Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of
the KAA(P)A.
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
ii) Ext.P1 order is passed without proper application of mind.
iii) Nothing is stated in Ext.P1 regarding the despatch of the said
order along with necessary records to the Government and
the Director General of Police.
iv) There is no public order violation in the crimes attributed to
the detenu and hence he is not liable to be booked under
KAA(P)A.
v) The last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenu relates
to offences which are bailable. That apart, the specific overt
acts of the detenu are not stated in that crime.
vi) The reason for imposing maximum period of detention of one
year is not stated in Ext.P2.
vii) The 1st respondent has not given any reply to Ext.P3
representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner
challenging the Ext.P1 order.
viii) There are no sufficient number of qualifying cases for initiating
the proceedings under KAA(P)A against the detenu.
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
2. All the contentions were adverted to by this Court and by judgment
dated 14.8.2024, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court yet again raising two
contentions. The contentions are as under:
a. His first contention is that Ext.P8 representation dated 19.6.2024
was not expeditiously considered.
b. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 14.8.2024, the petitioner
submitted Exts.P4 and P6 representations before the Government
and the Advisory Board. However, the same was not expeditiously
considered and its fate was not communicated to the detenu or
the petitioner.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed controverting the contentions.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced. We find that Ext.P8
representation dated 19.6.2024 was produced as Ext.P3 in the earlier writ
petition. The detenu raised a contention that the same was not considered
expeditiously. The said contention was considered, and this Court rejected the
same holding as under in paragraph 16 of the judgment.
16. Another challenge raised by the petitioner against the
detention order is that the Government failed to consider Ext.P3
representation dated 19.06.2024 of the petitioner against the
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
preventive detention order. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would point out that Ext.P4, which is the enlarged copy of the postal
acknowledgment card showing the service of Ext.P3 representation,
would reveal that the Additional Chief Secretary concerned had
received the said representation on 21.06.2024, but did not consider it
or take any decision on the grievance highlighted thereunder. With
regard to the above argument, it has to be stated, at the outset, that
Ext.P4 does not reveal that the representation sent by the petitioner
was received by the authority concerned on 21.06.2024. The date
written beneath the signature of the recipient in that
acknowledgement card, is illegible and hence it cannot be deciphered
as 21.06.2024, as pointed out by the petitioner. On the other hand, it
could be seen from the postal seal affixed on the other side of that
acknowledgment card, as evident from Ext.P4, that the said postal
item was presented for despatch at the post office at Ernakulam only
on 24.06.2024. Even if it is taken that the aforesaid postal item was
delivered to the addressee on 27.06.2024, the petitioner is seen to
have instituted the present petition on the next day, that is on
28.06.2024, without waiting for the result of that representation. In
the above circumstances, the non-consideration of Ext.P3
representation by the Government, cannot be pointed out as a reason
to challenge the legal sanctity of the detention order, since the issue
has been rendered subjudice at the instance of the petitioner herself.
It is pertinent to note that Ext.P2 order of confirmation discloses that
the said order has been passed after considering five documents
including a representation dated 09.04.2024 submitted by the detenu,
which is cited as item No.5 in the reference. Thus, there is absolutely
no merit in the argument that the proceedings of preventive detention
are vitiated due to the failure of the authorities concerned to consider
the representation submitted by the petitioner against the said
detention.
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
Thus the first contention was clearly raised in the earlier writ petition and the
same was rejected.
6. The next contention is with regard to non-consideration of Exts.P4
and P6. The writ petition was dismissed on 14.8.2024. Immediately thereafter, the
representation dated 19.6.2024 was taken up with Exts.P4 and P6 representations
filed on 16.8.2024, and were rejected by order dated 23.8.2024. No fault could be
attributed to the delay since it was immediately after the disposal of the writ
petition that Exts.P4 and P6 were filed, and the grievances raised therein had also
to be considered by the concerned respondent. The delay in considering the
representation particularly, after his contentions were all considered and rejected
by this Court cannot be said to be inordinate.
7. In view of the discussion above, we find no laxity on the part of the
respondents in considering the representation as contended by the petitioner.
This writ petition is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN,
JUDGE
DCS
W.P.(Crl.)No. 962 of 2024 2024:KER:82960
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 962/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCMPM/15054/2022-S1 DATED 22.03.2024 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1551/2024/HOME
DATED 03.06.2024
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 IN
W.P.(CRL). NO. 710/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.08.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P5 A TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE
ISSUANCE OF EXT P4
Exhibit -P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.08.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P7 A TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT P6
Exhibit -P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.06.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P9 A TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT P8
