SAJI THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER 's father Sri. E.V. Thomas is a defaulter under the KGST Act. Revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him were unsuccessful. Finally, in exercise of his powers under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the first respondent passed Ext.P1 order dated 29.10.2002 and ordered that warrant of arrest be issued for the arrest and detention of Sri.Thomas. Accordingly, Ext.P2 warrant of arrest was issued and Sri. Thomas was detained in civil prison from 6.11.2002. Thereupon the petitioner filed O.P.No.3369/02 before this court and based on an order of stay passed by this court, Sri.Thomas was released from detention, after a period of 9 days detention.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, following the interim order passed by this court in O.P.No.3369/2002 staying further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 order of detention and Ext.P2 warrant of arrest, the petitioner's father was released from detention. It is stated that thereafter this court passed Ext.P5 order dated 4.8.2011, pursuant to which Ext.P6, a fresh order of detention, was passed and on that basis, Sri.Thomas was arrested on 12.8.2011. It is stated that on expiry of 3 months of detention, Exts.R3(h), R3(i),R3(j) and R3(k) orders were issued by the District Collector, extending the period of detention by 3 months each and that the period of detention as per Ext.R3(K) will expire only in November, 2012. It is stated that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act enable the respondents to again arrest a person released from detention. On this basis, it is argued that as on 18th August, 2012, the petitioner's father was in detention only for a period of 380 days and since the maximum period of 2 years specified in Section 65(2)(b) has not expired, petitioner has no legal right to demand release of the detenue.