Thulasidharan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 24 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 23 of 2010(S)


1. THULASIDHARAN, SON OF BHARGAVAN ACHARI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

3. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

                For Respondent  :ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :24/02/2010

 O R D E R
             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                     &
                     P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                 -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(Crl).No.23 OF 2010
                 -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010


                             JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The petitioner states that he is the father of the detenue

Sanish who was detained in terms of Ext.P1 detention order

under the provisions of the Kerala Anti Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter, the ‘Act’, for short. The

detention order was issued on 2.8.2009 by the competent

authority but was enforced by securing detention only on

23.11.2009. The petitioner has two grounds. Firstly, it is

contended that there is inordinate unexplained delay between

the detention order and the enforcement of the detention and

that with such passage of time, it needs to be held that the

detention order has turned out to be one which could not be

enforced without a further due formulation of mind regarding

WPCR.23/10

2

the requirement for detention. Secondly, it is argued that the

ground of detention in terms of the recommendations of the

reporting authority is ‘Known Rowdy’ whereas the impugned

detention order has been issued by holding that the said

person is a ‘Known Goonda’.

2.Dilating on the relevant provisions of the Act, this Court has

held in W.P(Crl).No.456/09 and connected cases that the

conclusions arrived at with a person is a ‘Goonda’ and

therefore a ‘Known Goonda’ on similar facts, is insufficient to

sustain an order of detention. With this, we find that the

impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

3.In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P1

order and setting aside the detention of the detenue Sanish. If

the detention of the detenue is not necessary in connection

with any other case, he shall forthwith be released by the

WPCR.23/10

3

prison authorities. The Registry shall forthwith communicate

this order to the prison authorities concerned.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.S.GOPINATHAN,
Judge.

kkb.24/02.