{"id":9218,"date":"2009-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-03-08T05:29:11","modified_gmt":"2014-03-07T23:59:11","slug":"nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 383 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. NISHA RAFEEK, AGED 25, W\/O.RAFEEK,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.\n\n3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME &\n\n4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :07\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         R. BASANT &\n                     M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.\n           -------------------------------------------------\n                  W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009\n           -------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basant,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner is the wife of the detenue by name Rafeek<\/p>\n
@ Manal Rafeek.       The husband of the petitioner – the said<\/p>\n
Rafeek, is detained preventively as per Ext.P1 order of<\/p>\n
detention dated 31\/8\/09 passed by the 1st respondent under<\/p>\n
Sec.3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as `the KAAPA’). The husband of the<\/p>\n
petitioner was taken into custody in execution of the said order<\/p>\n
on 1\/9\/09 and he continues in custody from that date.<\/p>\n
      2.   He was taken into custody alleging that he is a<\/p>\n
`known rowdy’ and that his detention is necessary to prevent<\/p>\n
him from indulging in anti-social activities. He was involved in<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
as many as six crimes, the details of which are shown below:<\/p>\n
   Sl.No.     Crime No.      Section of          Stage of the\n                              offences           proceedings\n                 691\/05    448, 294(b) and         Acquitted\n      1                           427<\/span>\n                 86\/06     451, 341, 323 & Charge Sheet filed\n      2                         294(b)\n      3          283\/07    435, 120B & 427 Charge Sheet filed\n                 191\/09    Police officer is\n                           the complainant    Charge Sheet filed\n                           -       294(b) &\n      4                          353<\/span>\n      5          289\/09     294(b) & 427      Charge Sheet field\n      6          295\/09           435         Charge Sheet field\n\n<\/pre>\n
     3. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned Government Pleader have advanced their arguments.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioner      assails the impugned<\/p>\n
order on the following grounds.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Cases 1 and 4 above are not cases which can be taken<\/p>\n
into reckoning to decide whether the detenue is a known rowdy<\/p>\n
or not.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) Mind was not applied by the detaining authority to the<\/p>\n
above circumstances before passing the impugned order of<\/p>\n
detention.  There has been no proper application of mind on the<\/p>\n
part of the detaining authority who failed to consider whether<\/p>\n
the said cases 1 and 4 can be taken into reckoning to decide<\/p>\n
whether the detenue is a known rowdy.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     (3) Cases 5 and 6 referred above essentially reveal the<\/p>\n
disputes between the petitioner and his neighbour one Jameela<\/p>\n
Beevi and the same should also not have been reckoned to<\/p>\n
decide whether the detenue is a known rowdy.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) At any rate, the detention of the detenue is liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with as the representation of the detenue did not<\/p>\n
receive the consideration which it is entitled to under law in view<\/p>\n
of Art.22(5) of the Constitution and Sec.7(2) of the KAAPA.<\/p>\n
     4. The grounds:       So far as case No.1 is concerned, it is<\/p>\n
not disputed that the said case has already ended in acquittal. It<\/p>\n
is accepted that long before Ext.P1 order of detention was<\/p>\n
passed by the detaining authority, the said case had ended in<\/p>\n
acquittal.  So far as case No.4 is concerned, it is admitted and<\/p>\n
accepted that a police officer is the complainant in that case. In<\/p>\n
the light of Sec.2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA, such a case in which<\/p>\n
proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint by a<\/p>\n
police officer cannot be taken into reckoning to decide whether<\/p>\n
the detenue is a known rowdy or not. The learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader fairly accepts that cases 1 and 4 will have to be<\/p>\n
eschewed from consideration to decide whether the detenue is a<\/p>\n
known rowdy or not.\n<\/p>\n
     5. That leaves us with only four cases i.e., case Nos.2, 3, 5<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and 6.    According to the petitioner, case Nos.5 and 6 are also<\/p>\n
liable to be eschewed while considering the question whether<\/p>\n
the detenue is a known rowdy or not.           He advances this<\/p>\n
contention on the basis of the second proviso to Sec.2(p) which<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Provided that any offence committed<\/p>\n
           by a person,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i)          x x x x x x x x<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (ii) by virtue of his involvement as a<\/p>\n
           neighbour or as a close relative of the<\/p>\n
           neighbour in an incident which occurred<\/p>\n
           due to a dispute between immediate<\/p>\n
           neighbours; or”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is the case of the petitioner that cases 5 and 6 relate to the<\/p>\n
disputes between the de facto complainant – one Jameela Beevi,<\/p>\n
and the detenue who are neighbours. The detenue works at the<\/p>\n
lorry stand. The Jameela Beevi has a shop near the lorry stand.<\/p>\n
The 5th case arose out of a dispute between the two consequent<\/p>\n
to the alleged failure of the said Jameela Beevi to provide a glass<\/p>\n
for the detenue. Case No.6 is a sequel to that incident wherein<\/p>\n
the detenue is alleged to have committed mischief by fire on<\/p>\n
account of his animosity against the said Jameela Beevi which, in<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
turn, arose from the earlier crime i.e., case No.5.<\/p>\n
     6.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
inasmuch as case Nos.5 and 6 are also liable to be eschewed<\/p>\n
from consideration in view of the second proviso to Sec.2(p), the<\/p>\n
detaining authority must have taken the view that there are only<\/p>\n
two cases (case Nos.2 and 3 above) against the petitioner and<\/p>\n
these two cases cannot by themselves bring him within the<\/p>\n
sweep of the expression `known rowdy’. At least three cases are<\/p>\n
required to bring the detenue within the sweep of the expression<\/p>\n
`known rowdy’ in view of Sec.2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA.<\/p>\n
     7.   The learned Government Pleader replies that by no<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination can it be held that the detenue and the de<\/p>\n
facto complainant Jameela Beevi are neighbours.     According to<\/p>\n
the learned Government Pleader, close residence is necessary to<\/p>\n
bring two persons within         the sweep of the expression<\/p>\n
`neighbour’ and the      `immediate neighbour’ in the second<\/p>\n
proviso to Sec.2(p) which we have extracted above. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the dictionary –<\/p>\n
general and legal, advances a contention that “a person or thing<\/p>\n
that is near to another” can be held to be a neighbour<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the fact that the two are        not having their<\/p>\n
residences adjacent to each other or close to each other.    The<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel relies on the following passage in para-17 of the<\/p>\n
decision in Anoop v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2009 (4) KHC 551) to<\/p>\n
contend that the expression `neighbour’ must receive a<\/p>\n
reasonable and natural understanding.     The second proviso to<\/p>\n
Sec.2(p) cannot convey an invariable mandate that accused and<\/p>\n
the victim\/complainant must have their residences close to each<\/p>\n
other. Even if a person has his place of business or residence<\/p>\n
close to the place of business or residence of another, he can be<\/p>\n
held to be a neighbour within the sweep of the expression<\/p>\n
`neighbour’ and `immediate neighbour’ in the second proviso to<\/p>\n
Sec.2(p), contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.   The<\/p>\n
learned Government Pleader, on the contrary, contends that<\/p>\n
such a wide meaning given to the expression `neighbour’ and<\/p>\n
`immediate neighbour’ would effectively stultify the purpose of<\/p>\n
the legislation. All persons who may have their places of work<\/p>\n
close to each other cannot be held to be neighbours for the<\/p>\n
purpose of the second proviso to Sec.2(p), contends the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader contends<\/p>\n
that the nature of the dispute must be considered vis-a-vis the<\/p>\n
disputants to decide whether such persons would fall within the<\/p>\n
sweep of the expression `neighbour’ and the `immediate<\/p>\n
neighbour’ and the second proviso to Sec.2(p) would be<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
applicable. To satisfy the second proviso, the involvement must<\/p>\n
be as a neighbour or close relative of the neighbour and the<\/p>\n
incident must be an incident which had occurred due to a<\/p>\n
dispute between the immediate neighbour.          Not only should<\/p>\n
they be neighbours, the dispute must be a dispute between<\/p>\n
persons having such neghbourly relationship, contends the<\/p>\n
learned Government Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
     8. We are really not called upon to consider in this case<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner and the de facto complainant would be<\/p>\n
neighbours.    The precise grievance raised by the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that his contentions that he is a neighbour and the second<\/p>\n
proviso to Sec.2(p) would apply have not been considered either<\/p>\n
by the detaining authority or by the Government when Ext.P4<\/p>\n
representation was submitted by the detenue to the Government<\/p>\n
and the same was rejected by the Government under Ext.P5<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
     9. We have considered the second proviso to Sec.2(p). We<\/p>\n
take it that the anxiety of the legislature to distinguish between<\/p>\n
the acts which endanger public order as against acts which<\/p>\n
merely affect law and order is reflected in the provisos to Sec.2<\/p>\n
(p).  It is by now well settled that the powers of preventive<\/p>\n
detention can be invoked to successfully avoid threat to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
public order. Mere threats to law and order must be dealt with<\/p>\n
in accordance with the provisions of ordinary laws whereas a<\/p>\n
threat to public order can justify invocation of the draconian<\/p>\n
powers to preventively detain a person. In each case, we are<\/p>\n
satisfied that it will have to be considered closely and carefully<\/p>\n
by the detaining authorities and the other authorities as to<\/p>\n
whether the acts complained of pose a threat merely to law and<\/p>\n
order or they really amount to a threat to public order.     It is<\/p>\n
with this transparent purpose that even in the definition of a<\/p>\n
known rowdy certain types of offences are excluded by the<\/p>\n
legislature.     The dispute between immediate neighbbours or<\/p>\n
close relatives of the neighbours which occur between them in<\/p>\n
their position or status as neighbours have been excluded by the<\/p>\n
legislature in the definition of Sec.2(p) of the KAAPA. That to us<\/p>\n
is the underlying and dominant purpose of the provisos to Sec.<\/p>\n
2(p). We need only mention that the question whether the case<\/p>\n
concerned would stand excluded by the second proviso to Sec.2<\/p>\n
(p) has got to be considered carefully in each case by the<\/p>\n
detaining and the other authorities.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The learned Government Pleader submits that in this<\/p>\n
case the     detaining authority in Ext.P1 has considered the<\/p>\n
question pointedly in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 was passed at a time when<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the detenue had no opportunity to make a representation. In (iii)<\/p>\n
of paragraph 1 of Ext.P1 it is true that the 1st respondent has<\/p>\n
stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
            “The offence committed by him are against the<\/p>\n
     public and; not as a member of the family or a close<\/p>\n
     relative of the family, not as neighbours or close<\/p>\n
     relative of the neighbours, not as an employee of any<\/p>\n
     establishment, not as a member of the student<\/p>\n
     community and not as a member of a recognized<\/p>\n
     political party.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11. The learned Government Pleader submits that this is<\/p>\n
not a case where the detaining authority had not considered this<\/p>\n
question pointedly.\n<\/p>\n
     12. The learned counsel for the petitioner immediately<\/p>\n
counters this submission by pointing out that that was only a<\/p>\n
ritualistic repetition of the statutory provisions in the proviso to<\/p>\n
Section 2(p) and do not at all reveal pointed application of mind.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner and the said Jameela Beevi are<\/p>\n
neighbours or the dispute is one between immediate neighbours<\/p>\n
was not considered by the detaining authority in Ext.P1. At any<\/p>\n
rate, the order does not reveal application of mind pointedly on<\/p>\n
that question, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
     13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that, at any rate, whether cases (1) and (4) can be reckoned to<\/p>\n
decide whether the detenue is a known rowdy was not<\/p>\n
considered at all by the detaining authority and all these<\/p>\n
cumulatively reveal want of due application of mind by the<\/p>\n
detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
     14. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view<\/p>\n
of Section 7(4) of the KAAPA even assuming that the detaining<\/p>\n
authority had not considered the question whether cases 1 and 4<\/p>\n
can be taken into reckoning to decide whether the detenue is a<\/p>\n
known rowdy, the other four cases would show sufficiently that<\/p>\n
he falls within the sweep of the definition of known rowdy under<\/p>\n
Section   2(p) and therefore the fact that cases 1 and 4 will<\/p>\n
admittedly have to be excluded cannot be regarded as sufficient<\/p>\n
to invalidate the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
     15. We are satisfied that atleast insofar as cases 1 and 4<\/p>\n
are concerned, Ext.P1 reveals absence of pointed application of<\/p>\n
mind. The fact that crime No.691\/05 (i.e. case No.1) had ended<\/p>\n
in acquittal on 31\/3\/2009 is not now disputed by the<\/p>\n
respondents. Similarly the fact that case No.4 was initiated on<\/p>\n
the basis of a complaint by a police officer and for that reason<\/p>\n
cannot be taken into reckoning under Section 2(p) is also agreed<\/p>\n
and accepted by the respondents. To those crucial aspects, it is<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
very clear that mind has not been applied by the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n
     16. According to us, it is perhaps not necessary to take<\/p>\n
any decision on the crucial question about the validity of<\/p>\n
detention on the above grounds. What appeals to us more is the<\/p>\n
contention that Ext.P4 representation which was made to the<\/p>\n
Government by the detenu has not received the “real and proper<\/p>\n
consideration” which it deserves under Article 22(5) of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the KAAPA as held in<\/p>\n
the decision in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal<\/a> [1975<\/p>\n
(3)SCC 198]. The Constitution Bench in that decision has clearly<\/p>\n
held that representation made by a detenue is entitled to real<\/p>\n
and proper consideration at the hands of the Government. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel argues that such consideration has not been<\/p>\n
received by Ext.P4 in Ext.P5.\n<\/p>\n
     17. It is not necessary for us to advert to the law in any<\/p>\n
greater detail. In Shruthi v. State of Kerala<\/a> [W.P(Crl) No.323<\/p>\n
of 2009 dated 6th October 2009], this court had occasion to<\/p>\n
consider this question.   We have referred to the decision in<\/p>\n
Haradhan Saha (Supra), Bhut Nath Mete v. State of West<\/p>\n
Bengal<\/a> [(1974) 1 SCC 645] and John Martin v. State of West<\/p>\n
[(1975) 3 SCC 836] and have come to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
irreducible minimum which any such representation is entitled<\/p>\n
to is a “real and proper consideration”. The short question is<\/p>\n
whether Ext.P5 reveals that Ext.P4 has received               such<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     18. The contentions which we have referred above –<\/p>\n
namely cases 1 and 4 should not have been taken into reckoning<\/p>\n
for the reason that the former has ended in acquittal and the<\/p>\n
latter does not fall within Section 2(p)(iii) were raised<\/p>\n
specifically in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 does not at all reveal that the said<\/p>\n
contentions had received the consideration of the Government.<\/p>\n
Similarly, we note that the contention has specifically been<\/p>\n
raised in Ext.P4 that Jameela Beevi in cases 5 and 6 is the<\/p>\n
immediate neighbour of the detenue and that hence the said<\/p>\n
cases do not come within the purview of Section 2(p) of the<\/p>\n
KAAPA.     Ext.P5 reveals that such contention also has not<\/p>\n
received the pointed attention and consideration of the<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
     19. It is brought to our notice that Ext.P5 shows that a<\/p>\n
Deputy Secretary has issued the said letter to the detenue. He is<\/p>\n
not the one who had considered the representation. He is not<\/p>\n
the one who is competent to consider the representation.         A<\/p>\n
contention is raised that Ext.P5 cannot be reckoned as an order<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
communicating     to  the   detenue     the    result\/fate   of  his<\/p>\n
representation Ext.P4.\n<\/p>\n
      20. In the facts of this case, we do not think it necessary<\/p>\n
to go into that question in detail. It is trite that Article 22(5) of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the KAAPA clothe<\/p>\n
the detenue not only with the fundamental right to make an<\/p>\n
effective and expeditious representation; but also clothe him<\/p>\n
with the fundamental right to have the said representation<\/p>\n
considered expeditiously and properly by the authorities. They<\/p>\n
include the fundamental right to be communicated with the<\/p>\n
order after considering such representation. At the moment, we<\/p>\n
have no material to decide whether Ext.P5 faithfully represents<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary who alone is<\/p>\n
entitled under the Rules of business of the Government to<\/p>\n
consider such representation and pass orders. In the absence of<\/p>\n
better materials, we are unable to accept the contention that<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 does not effectively communicate the fate of Ext.P4<\/p>\n
representation submitted by the detenue. But we find merit in<\/p>\n
the contention that Ext.P5, even assuming that it effectively<\/p>\n
communicates to the detenue the fate of his representation<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 does not reveal “real and proper consideration” which<\/p>\n
such a representation is entitled to. We say this because the<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
order does not at all reveal whether cases 1 and 4 deserve to be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration. The order does not also show that the<\/p>\n
objection relating to cases 5 and 6 on the basis of the 2nd proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 2(p) have been considered at all by the Government.<\/p>\n
     21. It is well settled that the Government before it<\/p>\n
disposes of the representation made by the detenue under<\/p>\n
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and under Section 7(2)<\/p>\n
of the KAAPA need not hear the detenue. It is also well settled<\/p>\n
that the speaking\/reasoned order need not be passed. But, at<\/p>\n
any rate, such a representation is entitled to a “real and proper<\/p>\n
consideration” as we have already held in Shruthi (Supra) on<\/p>\n
the basis of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Haradhan<\/p>\n
Saha (Supra) and later Benches in Bhut Nath and John Martin<\/p>\n
(Supra).\n<\/p>\n
     Ext.P5 roughly translated reads as follows:<\/p>\n
           “Your    representation    (Ext.P4)   has    been<\/p>\n
      considered by the Additional Chief Secretary on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the Government. But it is found that you are<\/p>\n
      detained preventively as per the valid and legal<\/p>\n
      reasons.    Moreover, the representation does not<\/p>\n
      reveal any reason to take a contra decision. The said<\/p>\n
      representation, it is regretfully informed, has been<\/p>\n
      rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
     22. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
submission that this order can be the response to any petition<\/p>\n
filed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and under<\/p>\n
Section 7(2) of the KAAPA by any detenu whatever be the facts<\/p>\n
of the given case. This is a standard order which can be issued<\/p>\n
in response to any representation whatever be the facts of a<\/p>\n
given case.    In the instant case, atleast the two particular<\/p>\n
circumstances pointed out by the detenue – firstly that cases 1<\/p>\n
and 4 should not be taken into reckoning for the reason that<\/p>\n
former has ended in acquittal and the latter is not one that can<\/p>\n
be taken into consideration under Section        2(p)(iii), a police<\/p>\n
officer being the complainant and secondly that cases 5 and 6<\/p>\n
stand excluded under the 2nd proviso to Section 2(p), the victim\/<\/p>\n
complainant and the detenue being neighbours which deserved<\/p>\n
consideration have not been considered at all. At any rate, the<\/p>\n
order   does   not    convey   that   such    contentions   in  the<\/p>\n
representation have been considered.\n<\/p>\n
     23. We make it clear that we are not in this case<\/p>\n
proceeding to decide whether the alleged detenue and the de<\/p>\n
facto complainant in cases 5 and 6 are neighbours or immediate<\/p>\n
neighbours; but the detention must fail for the simple reason<\/p>\n
that the Government has not considered Ext.P4 representation in<\/p>\n
which inter alia this contention is also raised.<\/p>\n
W.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     24. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the detention of the detenue is liable to be interfered with for the<\/p>\n
reason that there has been no proper order passed on Ext.P4<\/p>\n
representation after giving the same “a real and proper<\/p>\n
consideration” as demanded by the Constitutional stipulation,<\/p>\n
the statutory provision as also the binding precedents. Ext.P5<\/p>\n
does not reveal such consideration. The challenge succeeds.<\/p>\n
     25. In the result,<\/p>\n
     a)   This writ petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     b)   The continued detention of the detenue Rafeek @<\/p>\n
Manal Rafeek is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     c)   The detenu shall forthwith be released from custody if<\/p>\n
his continued detention is not necessary in connection with any<\/p>\n
other cases.\n<\/p>\n
     d)   The Registry shall communicate the direction to the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram<\/p>\n
forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                          R. BASANT
\n                                             (Judge)
\n                                            Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n\n                                        M.C. HARI RANI\n                                              (Judge)\n\nNan\/      \/\/true copy\/\/          P.S. to Judge\n\nW.P.(Cri) No. 383 of 2009 -: 17 :-<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(Crl.).No. 383 of 2009(S) 1. NISHA RAFEEK, AGED 25, W\/O.RAFEEK, … Petitioner Vs 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) … Respondent 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME & 4. STATE […]<\/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-9218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - 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\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-07T23:59:11+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-07T23:59:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3301,\"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\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-07T23:59:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - 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\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-07T23:59:11+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-07T23:59:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009"},"wordCount":3301,"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\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009","name":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District ... on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-07T23:59:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nisha-rafeek-vs-district-collector-district-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nisha Rafeek vs District Collector (District … on 7 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/9218","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=9218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}