MARY SELMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, challenging the order of detention issued by the second respondent/District Magistrate.

(2.) Ext.P1 is the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Alappuzha/2nd respondent dated 19.8.2020 under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter be referred as 'KAA(P)A'). Detention order has been executed on 28.8.2020. 2 nd respondent passed the detention order on the basis of the reports of the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Alappuzha (3rd respondent), the Sponsoring Authority.

(3.) The husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred as detenu) has been classified as a 'known rowdy' on the basis of eight cases registered against him. According to the petitioner, the impugned order passed is in total violation of Sec.3(3) of KAA(P)A. The approval has not been granted in 12 days from the date of arrest. It is alleged that there is delay in consideration of the representation by the Government. Petitioner further alleges that the detenu was served illegible, non readable and incomplete documents (six in number) which caused prejudice in making an effective representation. It is her further case that there were no records before the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order to prove that the detenu was released on bail after Ext.P14 dismissal of bail; order in Crime No.1052/2019 of Mannachery Police Station. So the detenu can only be presumed as remaining in judicial custody and there is no consideration by the Detaining Authority as to why the detenu should in that context be detained in a preventive manner. Hence according to the petitioner, the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority, approved and confirmed by the authorities concerned, is without any application of mind and is illegal and unconstitutional.