DHANYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of Jayachandran @ Unni (hereinafter referred to as the detenu for short). The detenu was accused in Crime Nos.476/06, 1030/09, 2209/11, 46/12, 1338/12 and 693/13 of the Kundara Police Station, involving various offences under the Indian Penal Code. Based on the above, the 4th respondent submitted Ext.P6 report dated 4.5.2013 to the third respondent and the third respondent submitted Ext.P5 report under section 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA' for short, to the second respondent requesting that the detenu be classified as a 'known rowdy' under section 2(p) (iii) of the Act and he be detained under section 3 thereof. Based on the above, the second respondent considered the matter. Thereafter, he issued Ext.P1 order dated 8.7.2013. In that order, in view of the involvement of the detenu in Crime Nos.1030/09, 2209/11, 46/12 and 1338/12 of the Kundara Police Station, the second respondent held the detenu to be a 'known rowdy' under section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. Thereafter, adverting to Crime Nos.476/06 and 693/13 of the Kundara Police Station, the second respondent also held it necessary to detain the detenu under section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the detenu was detained on 20.7.2013, when Ext.P2 grounds of detention, Ext.P3 memo for execution and Ext.P4 jail admission authorization were also served on him. While undergoing detention, the detenu submitted Ext.P24 representation dated 22.7.2013 to the detaining authority which was received by the detaining authority on 24.7.2013. He also submitted Ext.P25 representation dated 29.7.2013 addressed to the Government through the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Viyyur. While Ext.P24 was returned by the second respondent on the ground that he did not have power to entertain the same, the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Viyyur forwarded Ext.P25 representation to the Government on 31.7.2013. The Government approved the detention by its order dated 31.7.2013. Ext.P25 representation was received by the Government on 7.8.2013 and was rejected by order dated 12.8.2013. In the mean time, the Government made reference under section 9 of the Act on 5.8.2013 and based on the report of the Advisory Board, passed order dated 9.9.2013, confirming the detention. It is in this factual background, the writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order of detention and with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the detenu and to set him at liberty.

(2.) One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding the manner in which Ext.P25 representation was dealt with in this case. According to the learned counsel, the representation was forwarded with inordinate delay, that on account of the delay, there is non compliance of section 9 of the Act and that the representation was not properly considered.

(3.) The Additional Director General of Prosecution appearing for the respondents contended that there was no delay in either forwarding the representation or dealing with the same and he also sought to justify the manner in which the representation was considered.