Kerala High Court
Asmath Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:77020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1320 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ASMATH BEEVI
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O SAMEER, MITHUN RAJ B, OTTATHU VEEDU,
J.N ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPURAM,
PIN - 679322
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 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671123
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 670004
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:77020
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:77020
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 07.07.2025 passed against one Sameer, 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 wife of
the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 18.09.2025, 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, it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod on 11.06.2025,
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, ten cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
order of detention. Out of the ten cases considered, the case
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:77020
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.367/2025 of Koduvally Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109,
324(1), 324(5), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS and Section 4(a) of Explosive
Act.
4. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. Admittedly, after the dismissal of the earlier writ
petition, the present petition is the second one filed by the petitioner
challenging the Ext.P1 detention order passed against the detenu. In
the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had raised several
contentions, all of which were considered on merits by this Court,
which, by order dated 08.09.2025, dismissed the same. However, at
the time of dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the impugned order
of detention had not yet been confirmed by the Government, as the
Government was awaiting the opinion of the Advisory Board. It is
also pertinent to note that while dismissing the earlier writ petition,
this Court made it clear that the dismissal was without prejudice to
the right of the petitioner to approach this Court afresh in the event
of any change in circumstances.
6. In this background, while reverting to the present writ
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:77020
petition, it is seen that the main contention advanced by the
petitioner is that although the detenu had submitted a representation
to the Government, the same has neither been considered nor has its
fate been communicated to the detenu. A copy of the said
representation (Ext.P3), which is appended with the writ petition,
reveals that the same is dated 25.07.2025. Admittedly, the said
representation was routed through the jail superintendent concerned
to the Government. It is not disputed that before the receipt of the
said representation, the matter was referred by the Government to
the Advisory Board for opinion. Dealing with a similar situation, the
Supreme Court in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India (1991 (1)
SCC 476);
"The time imperative for consideration of representation
can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the
necessities and the time at which the representation is
made. The representation may be received before the
case is referred to the advisory board, but there may not
be time to dispose of the representation before referring
the case to the advisory board. In that situation, the
representation must also be forwarded to the advisory
board along with the case of the detenu. The
representation may be received after the case of the
detenu is referred to the board. Even in this situation, the
representation should be forwarded to the advisory
board, provided the board has not concluded the
proceedings. In both the situations, there is no question
of consideration of the representation before the date of
receipt of the report of the advisory board. Nor it could
not be said that the Government had delayed the
consideration of the representation, unnecessarily
awaiting the report of the board. It is proper for the
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:77020
Government in such situation to await the report of the
board."
7. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
Golam Biswas v. Union of India and another (reported in 2015
KHC 5588). Therefore, the act of the Government in not considering
the representation immediately, instead forwarding it to the Advisory
Board, is certainly justifiable. However, after receipt of the opinion
of the Advisory Board and before taking a decision as to whether the
detention order is to be confirmed or not, it is imperative on the part
Government to consider the representation of the detenu and to
communicate its fate to him. In the present case, a perusal of the
confirmation order dated 18.09.2025 (Ext.P5) clearly indicates that
the representation submitted by the detenu to the Government
through the jail superintendent concerned is referred to as item no.6
in the said confirmation order. Moreover, the confirmation order
specifically records that the Government had carefully examined the
representation submitted by the detenu before passing the
confirmation order. Such a specific recital in the confirmation order
will certainly cut at the very root of the petitioner's contention that
the representation submitted by the detenu was not considered by
the Government. Likewise, even the detenu has no case that the
confirmation order was not served on him. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot be heard to contend that the fate of the representation was
not communicated to the detenu. In view of the above, the
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:77020
contention of the petitioner in this regard is devoid of merit and
cannot be sustained. The petitioner has miserably failed to convince
this Court that she has any fresh cause of action enabling her to
maintain the present writ petition after the dismissal of the earlier
writ petition.
Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1320 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:77020
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1320/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCKSGD/6328/
2025/D1 (1) DATED 07.07.2025 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.09.2025 IN W.P.(CRL.). NO. 1159/2025 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE DETENU BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT).NO.3219/2025/HOME
DATED 18.09.2025
