Kerala High Court
Ramlath vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:76235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1303 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAMLATH, AGED 53 YEARS
W/O KOCHU MOIDEEN, OOLAKKAL VEEDU, SANTHIPURAM
P.O, PALLINADA, SN PURAM, KOTHAPARMBU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680668
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695001
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:76235
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:76235
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
30.07.2025 passed against one Sidique @ Siddi, the detenu, under
Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the
detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government
vide order dated 25.09.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be
detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that, after considering the recurrent
involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, on 26.06.2025,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section
3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the
detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section
2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got himself
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while
passing the order of detention. Out of the six cases considered, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:76235
No.554/2025 of Mathilakam Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and the detenu is arrayed
as the 1st accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, though he had
prepared a representation and sent the same through registered post
to the Jail Superintendent for forwarding the same to the Government
after obtaining the signature of the detenu, the said representation
was not considered by the Government, and its fate was also not
communicated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority
after proper application of mind and after entering on the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned Government
Pleader submitted that the representation allegedly forwarded
through the Jail Superintendent has not been received so far by the
Government, and hence, the counsel for the petitioner could not be
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:76235
heard to say that such a representation was not considered by the
Government. That apart, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that Ext.P2 representation sent to the Advisory Board by the mother
of the detenu has been duly considered by the Government, and the
fate of the same was intimated to the detenu's mother in time.
According to the learned Government Pleader, in Ext.P5 confirmation
order, it is specifically stated that Ext.P2 representation submitted on
behalf of the detenu has been duly considered. The learned
Government Pleader further urged that the order of detention was
passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind
and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.554/2025 of Mathilakam
Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 110, 115(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS. The incident that led to
the registration of the said case occurred on 07.06.2025. The records
further reveal that the detenu, who is arrayed as the first accused,
was arrested in the said case on 20.06.2025 and released on bail on
21.07.2025. It was on 26.06.2025, while the detenu was under
judicial custody, that the sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for
initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, and subsequently, on
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:76235
30.07.2025, the impugned order of detention was passed. The
sequence of the events narrated above clearly shows that there is no
unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order.
8. As already stated, the main contention raised by the
counsel for the petitioner is that though he had prepared a
representation and sent the same through registered post to the Jail
Superintendent concerned for onward transmission to the
Government after obtaining the signature of the detenu, the said
representation was neither considered by the Government, nor was its
fate communicated. However, this contention was refuted by the
learned Government Pleader, who submitted that no such
representation was ever received by the Government. Anyhow, along
with the writ petition, a copy of the representation purportedly
prepared by the counsel for the detenu is produced as Ext.P3.
Moreover, a postal receipt showing that a postal article addressed to
the Jail Superintendent was sent is also produced as Ext.P4. However,
the acknowledgment card evidencing the receipt of the said postal
item has not been produced along with the writ petition. In the
absence of such acknowledgment, we cannot enter into a definite
conclusion that a representation addressed to the Jail Superintendent
was received by the addressee, and thereafter, transmitted to the
Government after obtaining the signature of the detenu. Therefore,
there is nothing on record to disbelieve the submission made by the
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:76235
learned Government Pleader that no such representation was received
by the Government. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be
heard to contend that the said representation was neither considered
by the Government nor was its fate communicated to the detenu.
Moreover, when a direct mode of submitting a representation to the
Government was available to the counsel for the detenu, we fail to
understand why he chose to route the representation through the Jail
Superintendent, instead of forwarding it directly to the Government.
9. Moreover, as it is evident from the records, a representation
submitted to the Advisory Board (Ext.P2) by the detenu's mother has
duly been considered by the Government, and its fate was promptly
communicated to her. In Ext.P5 confirmation order dated 25.09.2025,
it is specifically recorded that Ext.P2 representation submitted by the
detenu's mother had been considered by the Government. In the
aforesaid background, we are of the considered view that the
constitutional mandate to consider the representation submitted by
the detenu at the earliest possible opportunity has been duly complied
with. Furthermore, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that all
the procedural formalities required for passing the detention order
have been scrupulously observed in this case. Accordingly, the
contention of the petitioner that the representation submitted by the
detenu was not considered by the Government cannot be sustained.
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:76235
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.1303/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:76235
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1303/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTSR/9025/2025-C4 DATED
30.07.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 12.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 12.08.2025 ALONG WITH THE
COVERING LETTER OF THE COUNSEL
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EVIDENCING THE ISSUANCE OF EXT P3
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(RT).NO.3327/2025/HOME DATED
25.09.2025
