Kerala High Court
Noufal @ Muhammed Noufal vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2025
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 1 2025:KER:51923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16962 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NOUFAL @ MUHAMMED NOUFAL
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O NISARUDHEEN, TC 32/710, BALA NAGAR,
VETTUKADU WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHPURAM, PIN - 695029
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME (SSA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 2 2025:KER:51923
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
ADV. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 3 2025:KER:51923
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above-captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"(i) Call for the records leading to Exts. P1 and P2 and quash
them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction."
2. The petitioner states that he was classified as a "known rowdy" on
account of his involvement in certain crimes, and a detention order was passed by
the 2nd respondent invoking his powers under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity).
3. The detention order dated 05.04.2024 was executed on 06.04.2024.
Subsequently, by Ext.P2 order dated 03.06.2024, the Government confirmed the
order passed by the authorised officer and directed that the petitioner be
preventively detained for a period of six months. The petitioner states that, after
undergoing detention, he was released on 05.10.2024. Much later, on 24.04.2025,
the present Writ Petition was filed, seeking to quash the order of detention.
4. Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that prior to the issuance of the detention order, a sponsorship report was
submitted on 25.03.2024, followed by an additional report on 02.04.2024. The last
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 4 2025:KER:51923
prejudicial act alleged against the petitioner pertains to Crime No. 101 of 2024 of
the Valiyathura Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 341, and
506 of the IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 23.01.2024 and
released on bail by order dated 25.01.2024. Insofar as the previous crime, i.e.,
Crime No. 96 of 2024 of the same Police Station is concerned, the petitioner was
arrested on 24.01.2024 and granted bail only on 05.04.2024, the very date on which
the detention order was passed. According to the learned counsel, the detaining
authority failed to disclose any compelling reasons in the detention order justifying
the invocation of preventive detention despite the petitioner being in judicial custody
on the date of the order. A mere ipse dixit that the detenu is likely to indulge in
further criminal activities is, by itself, insufficient. It is further contended that there
was a delay of nearly 10 days in the issuance of the detention order after the
sponsorship report, which remains unexplained.
5. The aforesaid contention is strenuously opposed by Sri. K.A. Anas, the
learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that the present Writ Petition is not
maintainable in law. He places reliance on the decision in Bangalore City
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others1 to
contend that although no period of limitation is prescribed for filing petitions under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is expected to
approach the Court without undue delay. Where there is inordinate delay, a cogent
2012 SCC 3 727
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 5 2025:KER:51923
and satisfactory explanation must be offered. He submits that, in the present case,
in the light of the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner
was obliged to furnish a reasonable explanation for the substantial delay. He further
points out that the present Writ Petition was filed only on 24.04.2025, after the
issuance of a subsequent order of detention on 01.02.2025 and its execution on
02.02.2025, on account of his involvement in subsequent crimes.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the
records.
7. We find that the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated
05.04.2024. The detention order was executed on 06.04.2024, and the same was
confirmed by the Government on 03.06.2024, and he was ordered to be detained
for 6 months. On his release on 05.10.2024, the detenu got himself involved in
Crime No. 1347 of 2024 of the Valiyathura Police Station. This led to the passing of a
subsequent detention order on 17.11.2024. The detenu has challenged the said
order by filing W.P.(Crl.) No. 483 of 2025 on 10.4.2025, and the said Writ Petition is
pending. Much later, on 24.04.2025, the instant Writ Petition was filed, challenging
the earlier order of detention.
8. We find that no valid explanation is given by the detenu for the long
and indiscriminate delay in approaching this Court, after being released on the
expiry of the period, and after suffering a second detention order. Gajendragadkar,
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 6 2025:KER:51923
C.J, speaking for the Constitution Bench, in Smt. Narayani Devi Khaitan. v.
State of Bihar2, observed as under:
"It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the
High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can
be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Article
226 and contends that his fundamental rights have been
contravened by any executive action, the High Court would
naturally like to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the
petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other relevant
circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for
the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in
favour of the petitioner, ends of justice may require that the High
Court should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that
if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under Article
226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the
law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition
was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its
writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to
when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in
favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is
otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to
the discretion of the High Court and like all matters left to the
discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be
exercised judiciously and reasonably."
9. In Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society (supra), it was
observed that though the Framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any
[CA No. 140 of 1964]
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 7 2025:KER:51923
period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is
only one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts
that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is
essentially an equity jurisdiction, should not be exercised in favour of a person who
approaches the Court after a long lapse of time and no cogent explanation is given
for the delay.
10. In Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports3,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even in cases involving the alleged
violation of fundamental rights, the matter must be left to the discretion of the High
Court when the petitioner approaches the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution after an inordinate delay.
11. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature, and undue delay in invoking the
writ jurisdiction may, in appropriate cases, justify the refusal of relief
notwithstanding the merits of the claim.
12. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all
the necessary requirements before passing an order under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied with in this case. The competent
authority passed the detention order after thoroughly verifying all the materials
[(1969) 1 SCC 185]
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 8 2025:KER:51923
placed by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite objective, as
well as subjective satisfaction. The detention order is challenged after almost a year,
and after undergoing the detention. No explanation, let alone any satisfactory
explanation, is offered for the delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any
manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not made out
any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
APM
WP(C) No. 16962 of 2025 9 2025:KER:51923
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16962/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCTVM/3671/2024-S13 DATED 05.04.2024 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF GO.(RT).NO.1550/2024/HOME
DATED 03.06.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
