{"id":36285,"date":"2010-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-09T09:00:33","modified_gmt":"2016-09-09T03:30:33","slug":"beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 32572 of 2009(N)\n\n\n1. BEEVI, W\/O. AALIKUNJU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ADVISORY BOARD,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR\/DISTRICT\n\n4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n5. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE\n\n6. THE C.I OF POLICE,\n\n7. THE S.I OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHISH\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :14\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n             K.M.JOSEPH & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      W.P.(C) No.32572 OF 2009\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                 Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner seeks the following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
                “i.     Call for the records leading to issuance of<\/p>\n
          Ext.P1 from the 3rd respondent and quash the same by<\/p>\n
          issuing a writ of certiorari , or any other appropriate<\/p>\n
          writ, order of direction .\n<\/p>\n
                ii)     Call for the records leading to issuance of<\/p>\n
          Ext.P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of<\/p>\n
          certiorari and release the detenu K.K.Razack @<\/p>\n
          Abdul Razack from the prison forthwith .\n<\/p>\n
                iii)    Declare that 7th respondent have no right<\/p>\n
          to register a crime against the detenu under Section 3<\/p>\n
          (1) of the Act for detaining him in Jail.”\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:<\/p>\n
     The petitioner is the mother of K.K.Razack @ Abdul Razack who<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
is detained by an order passed under Kerala Anti-Social Activities<\/p>\n
( Prevention) Act 2007 (herein after referred to as the Act). The order<\/p>\n
of detention is dated 31-08- 09 (Ext.P1). The petitioner produced the<\/p>\n
grounds of detention as Ext.P2. The allegation against the detenu<\/p>\n
essentially is that the detenu is a ‘Known Goonda”. The basis for<\/p>\n
objective satisfaction in this regard is sought to be derived from two<\/p>\n
crimes registered under Section 21(a) of The Narcotic Drugs and<\/p>\n
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.      It is alleged that on 8\/8\/2007 at<\/p>\n
16.20 hrs. the Sub Inspector of Police arrested the detenu with 3 gms.<\/p>\n
of brown sugar from Moonnamthode junction, Thamarassery chungam.<\/p>\n
A charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate<\/p>\n
I, Thamarassery on 22-01-2008 as C.C.No.50\/2008 and the case is<\/p>\n
pending trial. Again on 9\/8\/2008 at 9.40 hrs. the detenu came to be<\/p>\n
arrested with 1gm and 510 m.g. of brown sugar from Thamarassery<\/p>\n
Chungam and FIR was registered under Section 21(a) of NDPS Act on<\/p>\n
9\/8\/2008.     A charge sheet has been filed before the JFCM,<\/p>\n
Thamarassery on 5\/2\/2009 and the case is pending as C.C.No.139\/99.<\/p>\n
It is further stated by the District Magistrate in Ext.P1, the order of<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
detention, that he has evaluated the information received from the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police and that he is satisfied that the detenu is a<\/p>\n
‘Known Goonda” and if he happens to be released, he would indulge in<\/p>\n
anti social activities detrimental to the maintenance of public safety<\/p>\n
order and peace in the locality.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner would essentially make the following<\/p>\n
submissions before us :\n<\/p>\n
      There is non-application of mind by the detaining authority. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that there are only two cases. The first case was in the year<\/p>\n
2007. Thereafter the second crime was registered on 9-8-2008. There<\/p>\n
is inordinate delay in passing the detention order and that it is passed<\/p>\n
only on 31-08-2009. It is pointed out that there is no other instances.<\/p>\n
It is submitted that the link between the incident and the need for<\/p>\n
detention did not exist at the time when the order of detention was<\/p>\n
passed.   It is further contended that the offences are said to be<\/p>\n
committed under Section 21(a) of NDPS Act and the maximum<\/p>\n
punishment in respect of the offence alleged would be six months. It is<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
submitted that the offences are minor offences . Reference is made to<\/p>\n
the quantity of the substances which have been seized . It is submitted<\/p>\n
that detenu has been in detention for four months and one week. It is<\/p>\n
further contended that under Section 2(t) of the Act which defines the<\/p>\n
word “Known rowdy”, only if he is found guilty in one offence which<\/p>\n
bears punishment of more than five years or he commits three offences<\/p>\n
where the sentence should not be less than one year can a person be<\/p>\n
characterised or deemed as a “known rowdy”. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
maximum punishment in both the crimes registered against the detenu<\/p>\n
is only six months each. Reference is made to Nisha Salim v. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala and others<\/a> (2009(2) KHC 1014(DB) to contend that this is not<\/p>\n
a case where the authorities were justified in ordering detention. It is<\/p>\n
further contended that it is a case where there is violation of Sections 7<\/p>\n
(1),     7(2) and 7(3) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in<\/p>\n
breach of the mandate of Section 7(1), the order of detention was<\/p>\n
neither read out to nor served on the detenu. Instead, it was served on<\/p>\n
detenu’s relative. There is also transgression of the dictate of Section 7<\/p>\n
(2), it is contended, in so far as the materials were not made available<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
to the detenu. It is further contended that Section 7(3) stood breached<\/p>\n
by the reason of the fact that the detenu could not represent properly<\/p>\n
and there is no opportunity for legal consultation made available. It is<\/p>\n
further submitted that the detenu could not file any representation as he<\/p>\n
is an illiterate person and he was not served with the order of detention<\/p>\n
or the materials in breach of Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      Exts.P4 and P5 representations were filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the Government and the Advisory Board respectively and it is<\/p>\n
submitted that the       representation has been disposed of by the<\/p>\n
government vide Ext.P6. There is no consideration as required in law.<\/p>\n
It is again contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
order approving the original order of detention under Section 3(3) was<\/p>\n
communicated to the detenu only in English.\n<\/p>\n
       Lastly it is contended that there is violation of Section 20 of the<\/p>\n
Act in so far as though Section 20 mandates that the orders issued by<\/p>\n
the government under the Act should bear the seal and the signature of<\/p>\n
the officer, Ext. P7 order approving the order of detention does not<\/p>\n
bear the seal and signature of the officer and it is instead issued<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
authenticated by the Section Officer.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned Government Pleader would contend that there is<\/p>\n
no merit in the writ petition. He would point out that the offences are<\/p>\n
serious as they relate to sale of brown sugar. He would submit that<\/p>\n
having regard to the nature of the trade, this court need not be feel<\/p>\n
persuaded by the quantity involved in judging the seriousness of the<\/p>\n
issues . He would further contend that there is some time taken for<\/p>\n
investigation and filing charge sheet in the second incident. The<\/p>\n
charge sheet was filed, it is contended, on 5-2-2009 in respect of the<\/p>\n
alleged offence committed on 9-8-2008.         It is further stated that<\/p>\n
necessarily procedures have to be complied with and in the facts of this<\/p>\n
case there is no delay. It is submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
has filed a report and it is considered by the Circle Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
and it is placed before the Superintendent of Police and later the matter<\/p>\n
was placed before the detaining authority and the order is passed within<\/p>\n
a reasonable time. Having regard to the nature of the offences also, the<\/p>\n
link has not been snapped. . It is pointed out that it is note worthy that<\/p>\n
the second incident was committed by the detenu while he was on bail<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
in connection with the earlier offence and this has been stated in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit. It is further submitted that there is no merit in relying<\/p>\n
on Section 2(t) in a case where the allegation is that the detenu is a<\/p>\n
“Known Goonda” and it is irrelevant. It is further submitted that all the<\/p>\n
formalities have been complied with in this case.           The order of<\/p>\n
detention is served on the detenu and acknowledgment is received.<\/p>\n
The materials were also served on the detenu. It is pointed out that<\/p>\n
there is no question of opportunity being afforded to the detenu by way<\/p>\n
of legal consultation, if the detenu does not make any demand and the<\/p>\n
right to legal consultation is essentially enshrined in the context of the<\/p>\n
right to make representation before the Government and the Advisory<\/p>\n
Board which is essentially the right which is enshrined under Article<\/p>\n
22(5) of the Constitution also.        It is contended by the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader that no grounds have been made out in the<\/p>\n
representation filed by the petitioner.          The representation was<\/p>\n
considered and Ext.P6 order was passed. It is further stated that the<\/p>\n
law does not require communication of the order approving the order<\/p>\n
of detention which means that the fact that the order of approval was<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
communicated to the detenu in English is irrelevant and cannot advance<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioner.    It is lastly contended that there is no merit<\/p>\n
in the contention based on Section 20 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Whether the order of detention is illegal by the reason of<\/p>\n
the fact that it is passed on 31-08-2009 ?\n<\/p>\n
       The detenu is detained under Ext.P1 order on the basis that he is<\/p>\n
a “Known Goonda”.            For arriving at this objective satisfaction,<\/p>\n
reference is made to two cases. Both the cases are under the NDPS<\/p>\n
Act. The detenu has been charge sheeted in two separate instances not<\/p>\n
forming part of the same transaction for having committed the acts<\/p>\n
within the meaning of the term “goonda”. There is no dispute that the<\/p>\n
two offences alleged against the detenu can be treated as acts within the<\/p>\n
meaning of the term goonda.            Neither the detaining authority or<\/p>\n
government, nor this court is ordinarily concerned with as to whether<\/p>\n
the said offenec is committed and it is a matter to be considered by the<\/p>\n
criminal courts. For the purpose of this case that it can be safely said<\/p>\n
that the detenu satisfies the objective criteria to be classified as a<\/p>\n
known goonda. We are not inclined to render the order of detention<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
vulnerable on the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
case against the detenu, in particular the second offence is fabricated.<\/p>\n
There is absolutely no plea of malafides even warranting an<\/p>\n
investigation into that question.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    We notice that while it is true that the second incident took<\/p>\n
place on 9-8-2008 and the detention order was passed on 31-08-2009.<\/p>\n
But we cannot over look the fact that there had to be investigation and<\/p>\n
filing of a final report and charge sheet was filed in respect of an<\/p>\n
offence which was allegedly committed on 9-8-2008 on 5-2-2009.<\/p>\n
Thereafter we find on a perusal of the files that the Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police initiated the proceedings for        filing a report before the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police in June 2009. No doubt when the report of<\/p>\n
the police was placed before the District Magistrate, he directed the<\/p>\n
registration of crime under Section 3 of the Act. Whatever that be,<\/p>\n
within a period of two months of the sponsoring of the case, an order<\/p>\n
of detention has been passed by the detaining authority. Necessarily<\/p>\n
the authorities must apply their mind as to whether resort must be<\/p>\n
made to the grave powers which are available under the Act as it<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
would involve deprivation of liberty of a person.         We also cannot<\/p>\n
overlook the fact that the second offence namely the offence on 9-8-<\/p>\n
2008 was allegedly committed by the detenu while he was on bail. The<\/p>\n
earlier offence was committed nearly one year back.          Therefore it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that in the facts of this case, there is snap of the link or<\/p>\n
that there is no nexus available to pass the order of detention on<\/p>\n
31-8-2009. The order was executed immediately without any delay<\/p>\n
and the detenu was admittedly arrested on 6-9-2009.<\/p>\n
      7.    There is compliant by the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
that under Section 2(t) of the Act unless there is an offence which bears<\/p>\n
the maximum punishment which is not less than one year, it cannot be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration, where as the offence committed by the detenu<\/p>\n
allegedly is one where the maximum sentence is less than one year.<\/p>\n
We are afraid that there is no merit in the contention. There is no<\/p>\n
challenge to the vires of the Act. The order of detention is premised on<\/p>\n
the detenu being a “known goonda”. We are only to consider whether<\/p>\n
the detenu satisfies the objective criteria to be proceeded against as a<\/p>\n
“known goonda”. We have already held that the detenu satisfies the<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
criteria to be proceeded against as a “known goonda”. We are not sit in<\/p>\n
judgment over the wisdom, legality and propriety of legislature<\/p>\n
providing different criteria for persons to be classified as “known<\/p>\n
Goonda” on the one hand and “known rowdy” on the other. It is a<\/p>\n
matter which is clearly beyond the pleadings and the reliefs in the writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 there is reference to the report by the police authorities that<\/p>\n
petitioner is continuing with his activities and there is no basis for that.<\/p>\n
When an order of detention is passed, undoubtedly, there must be<\/p>\n
subjective satisfaction.    Subjective satisfaction is essentially        a<\/p>\n
prognosis of what a person may do in the future based on his activities<\/p>\n
in the past.    The Act in fact contemplates the fulfilment of objective<\/p>\n
criteria on the basis of certain events which are predicated in the Act.<\/p>\n
Learned Government pleader justified the report of the Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Police that the detenu was active. We cannot overlook the line of<\/p>\n
criminal activity that the detenu is alleged to be engaged in in this<\/p>\n
regard also.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
      9.    We are also not convinced that the petitioner can derive any<\/p>\n
assistance from 2009(2) KHC 1014. There is a distinction between the<\/p>\n
public order, disorder or law and order. They are all well known<\/p>\n
concepts. We should not be oblivious of the facts of this case. The<\/p>\n
offences which are alleged against the detenu are, in our view, serious,<\/p>\n
as they relate to the sale of brown sugar and are concerned with aspects<\/p>\n
of safety and health of members of society. In fact there is reference<\/p>\n
in the counter affidavit to the effect of sale of such substances on the<\/p>\n
health of the young members of the society and if the detaining<\/p>\n
authority as also the government felt that the detenue is to be detained<\/p>\n
so as to prevent him from committing offences for which apparently<\/p>\n
there is material and matter in the form of charge sheets filed in respect<\/p>\n
of two offences committed under the said Act one in 2007 and another<\/p>\n
in 2008, we do not think it is for this court to sit in judgment in<\/p>\n
judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the authorities in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   Whether there is violation of Sections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of<\/p>\n
the Act ? The allegation that there is violation of Sections 7(1) and 7<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
(2) have been denied in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the order<\/p>\n
of detention and the records were in fact served on the detenu under<\/p>\n
proper acknowledgment.       The learned Government Pleader made<\/p>\n
available the files . A perusal of the files would also clearly probabilise<\/p>\n
the case of the respondents that the detenu acknowledged the receipt of<\/p>\n
the order of detention on the date of detention itself.      Therefore we<\/p>\n
cannot lay much store in the case of the petitioner that the detenu was<\/p>\n
not served the order of detention. The acknowledgment would show<\/p>\n
that the order of detention was indeed read out to him. There is also no<\/p>\n
basis for the complaint under Section 7(2). The files would reveal that<\/p>\n
the records were made available to him.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   The next question is whether there is violation of Section 7<\/p>\n
(3). Section 7(3) of the Act reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
               “The Superintendent of the Jail where such<\/p>\n
         person is detained shall afford him reasonable<\/p>\n
         opportunity to consult a lawyer and reasonable<\/p>\n
         assistance in making a representation against the<\/p>\n
         detention order to the government or to the Advisory<\/p>\n
         Board.”<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09               Page numbers<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      12.    We also bear in mind Article 22(5) which reads as<\/p>\n
follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  When any person is detained in<\/p>\n
            pursuance of an order made under any law<\/p>\n
            providing   for   preventive   detention,  the<\/p>\n
            authority making the order shall, as soon as<\/p>\n
            may be, communicate to such person the<\/p>\n
            grounds on which the order has been made<\/p>\n
            and shall afford him the earliest opportunity<\/p>\n
            of making a representation against the order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      13.   A perusal of Section 7(2) would show that the materials,<\/p>\n
the grounds of detention and other documents are to be served on the<\/p>\n
detenu. It further provides that he must be specifically told that he has<\/p>\n
a right to make a representation to the government and to the Advisory<\/p>\n
Board. It is in the context of this right to make a representation that<\/p>\n
Section 7(3) provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall make<\/p>\n
available opportunity for legal consultation and to assist him in the<\/p>\n
making of representation. There can be no doubt that in view of the<\/p>\n
compliance with Section 7(2) it must be held that the detenu was aware<\/p>\n
of his legal right and constitutional right to make a representation to<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
the government and to the Advisory Board. The order would also show<\/p>\n
that the detenu was informed that he has a legal right to make<\/p>\n
representation to the government and to the Advisory Board. The<\/p>\n
detenu may or may not exercise the right to make a representation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Neither the constitution nor any law compels a person detained to<\/p>\n
make a representation. It is a right which is available to him which he<\/p>\n
may or may not exercise. What Section 7(3) of the Act contemplates in<\/p>\n
our view is that if the detenu upon being informed of his right to make<\/p>\n
a representation under Section 7(2) desires to make a representation,<\/p>\n
the Superintendent of Jail is legally obliged to assist him in the making<\/p>\n
of representation and also in this direction to afford a reasonable<\/p>\n
opportunity to consult a lawyer. We would think that the consultation<\/p>\n
with a lawyer under Section 7(3) is essentially for the purpose of<\/p>\n
making representation.      The law of preventive detention does not<\/p>\n
contemplate grant of bail.\n<\/p>\n
      14.   In the context of the provisions, we cannot hold that there<\/p>\n
is a duty on the part of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the detenu<\/p>\n
that he has a right to consult a lawyer even if the detenu does not seek<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
it. We find merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
that where the legislature intended that      the right should be made<\/p>\n
known to the detenu, it has been specifically incorporated. A case in<\/p>\n
point is the mandate of Section 7(2) that the detenu must be informed<\/p>\n
of his right to make a representation to the government and to the<\/p>\n
Advisory Board. There is no such right which is incorporated in the<\/p>\n
Act to make known to the right of the detenue for consultation with a<\/p>\n
lawyer. Essentially if the detenu seeks any such consultation, it cannot<\/p>\n
be denied to him by the Superintendent of Jail and the Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Jail is bound to make available opportunity for consultation with a<\/p>\n
lawyer. This we think is the scheme of the Act. Therefore, we see no<\/p>\n
merit in the contention of the petitioner based on Section 7(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
      15.    We see no merit in the contention based on Ext.P6. Ext.P6<\/p>\n
is the order by which the petitioner was informed that the<\/p>\n
representation filed by her stands rejected. Exts.P4 and P5 are the<\/p>\n
representations filed. On a perusal of the representation, the substance<\/p>\n
of the representation appears to be, in short, that the detenu is innocent.<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
We do not think that it could be said on the basis of the representation<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner that Ext.P6 is vitiated or that there has been no<\/p>\n
proper consideration of the representation. As far as the question of<\/p>\n
communication of the order of approval in English is concerned, we are<\/p>\n
of the view that there is no merit in the same.      If there is no legal<\/p>\n
obligation to communicate the order of approval of detention to the<\/p>\n
detenu we see no purpose or merit in the contention that the detention<\/p>\n
is bad as the order is not communicated in Malayalam.<\/p>\n
      16.   We also see no merit in the contention based on Section 20<\/p>\n
of the Act. Ext.P7 is the order approving the detention. Therein the<\/p>\n
name of Additional Chief Secretary to Government is shown and it is<\/p>\n
signed by the section officer. The answer to petitioner’s contention is<\/p>\n
found in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent.<\/p>\n
It reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
                   “The averments in para 15 of the writ<\/p>\n
             petition are not true. As per para 163, Chapter X<\/p>\n
             of the Secretariat Manual, when final decision of<\/p>\n
             Government are communicated, they have to be<\/p>\n
             embodied in the form of Government Order or<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
             Circular. A confirmation Order under Section 10<\/p>\n
             (4) of the Act is final in nature and therefore the<\/p>\n
             decision in this case was communicated as G.O.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n             (Rt)No.3353\/2009\/Home dated 12-11-2009 in<\/p>\n
             the form of a Government Order prescribed in<\/p>\n
             Appendix II of the Secretariat Manual.           The<\/p>\n
             format so prescribed does not require the seal and<\/p>\n
             signature of the Secretary to Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      17.   Learned Government Pleader would submit that the order<\/p>\n
containing the seal and signature as required under Section 20 should<\/p>\n
be there in the files. At any rate we do not think that this is a ground on<\/p>\n
which we should grant relief to the petitioner. There is another aspect<\/p>\n
of the matter. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that    the law of preventive detention is not a punitive<\/p>\n
measure, but it is a jurisdiction to prevent commission of undesirable<\/p>\n
activities.  It is pointed out that    the person who is preventively<\/p>\n
detained is however sent to jail and has to spend time with convicted<\/p>\n
persons. Far from reforming any person so detained, it may only make<\/p>\n
matters worse. We feel that this is a matter which should engage the<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09                Page numbers<\/p>\n
attention of the government and we direct the Secretary, Ministry of<\/p>\n
Home to bestow his attention in the matter so that persons who are<\/p>\n
detained need not spend time detained with convicts.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has<\/p>\n
already undergone detention for a period of four months and one week.<\/p>\n
However, we do not think that the petitioner has made out any ground<\/p>\n
for interfering with the order of detention.    Accordingly, the writ<\/p>\n
petition fails and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                        P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sv.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.No.32572\/09    Page numbers\n\n\n\n\n                               K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE\n\n\n\n                           P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE\n\nWPC.No.32572\/09    Page numbers\n\n\n\n\nsv.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32572 of 2009(N) 1. BEEVI, W\/O. AALIKUNJU, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE ADVISORY BOARD, 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR\/DISTRICT 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 5. THE DY. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBeevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3782,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010"},"wordCount":3782,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010","name":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-09T03:30:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}