VILASINI MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) Who has the right to make the representation under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India and S.7(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA) Can non consideration or improper consideration of an application independably made by anyone other than the detenu justify a prayer for invalidation of the detention

(2.) This writ petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner herein to direct the production of her son Biju (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) who is detained in custody in pursuance of an order passed under S.3 of the KAAPA) before this Court and to release him from such custody / detention.

(3.) The detenu Biju was allegedly involved in five criminal cases, four of which were pending trial and the fifth was pending investigation. He, therefore, satisfies the definition of a Known Rowdy in S.2(p) of the KAAPA. The 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, submitted Ext. P1 report to the 4th respondent and on the basis of that the 4th respondent submitted Ext. P2 report to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued Ext. P3 order of detention under S.3 of the KAPA. The detenu was arrested on 31/01/2009. The order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent was approved by the Government under S.3(3) of the KAPA on 10/02/2009. The Advisory Board subsequently recommended his continued detention. The Government has confirmed the order of detention accepting the recommendations of the Advisory Board. After the detention of the detenu, the petitioner herein submitted Ext. P4 to the Home Minister and a copy thereof to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent issued Ext. P5 reply to the petitioner whereas the petitioner and the detenu have not been informed of the fate of Ext. P4 submitted to the Home Minister. He continues in custody.