9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Act to the 2nd respondent requesting that the detenu be classified as a 'Known Goonda' as provided under Section 2(o) of the Act and that to prevent him from continuing his anti-social activities, he be detained under Section 3 of the Act Subsequently, yet another report was made on 03/01/2013. Based on the above reports, the 2nd respondent initiated action and finally issued Ext. P1 order of detention dated 29/01/2013, classifying the detenu as a 'Known Goonda' under Section 2(o) of the Act and ordering his detention as provided under Section 3(1) of the Act. 2. Accordingly, the detenu was arrested and is under detention since 03/05/2013. On the issuance of the order, the 2nd respondent reported the matter to the Government and the Government approved the order of detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act, by order dated 09/05/2013. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. Before the Advisory Board, the detenu was represented by a counsel and after affording an opportunity of being heard, the Advisory Board made its report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government issued order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was non-compliance of Section 3(3) of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that vital documents were not furnished to the detenu. This contention was raised referring to Ext. P1 order of detention, which refers to reports dated 22/12/2012 and 08/01/2013 made by the sponsoring authority. The learned counsel further contended that among the two reports, report dated 08/01/2013 was not furnished to the detenu and that therefore, his right to make representation, availing of the constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, stood violated. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.A. Sulaiman v. Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others 2009 KHC 673 : ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 83 : 2009 (2) KLJ 861 : 2009 (4) KLT SN 32, which has been referred to in the subsequent judgments in Ranjini v. State of Kerala 2009 (3) KHC 431 : 2009 (3) KLT 500 : ILR 2009 (4) Ker. 824 and Sujitha v. State of Kerala 2012 KHC 2222 : 2012 (1) KLT SN 133. 8. It is true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention. 9. Insofar as this case is concerned, reading of Ext. P1 order shows that in the beginning of that order, while explaining the manner in which the proceedings were initiated, reference has been made to the report dated 08/01/2013 and the order does not make any further reference to that report or to the contents thereof. In other words, the report dated 08/01/2013 is only a document, which is referred to by the detaining authority while narrating the facts and this document does not form the ground for detention. Therefore, report dated 08/01/2013 is not a document which ought to have been supplied to the detenu and failure to supply the document is inconsequential. 10. Even apart from this, another factual question is whether the failure to supply the report dated 08/01/2013 has deprived the detenu his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention. The files produced by the learned Government Pleader show that impugning the order of detention, when the matter was heard by the Advisory Board, the detenu was represented by a counsel and that both the detenu and the counsel made representations to the Advisory Board. Further, from the files, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, this aspect of the matter is to be explained by the respondents and the question to be considered is whether that explanation is satisfactory. 15. Insofar as this case is concerned, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent and in paragraph 12, it has been stated thus: ........It is also submitted that the District Magistrate, Kollam issued detention order No. M9-71731/KAAPA/2012, 29/01/2013 and the same was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottiyam for execution. Knowing about the detention order the detenu evading from the arrest by locating near the bank of the Ithikara river and the kadavu, due to this, the movement of the police can be easily detected by the detenu and his henchman. The detenu was evading arrest when police attempted to arrest him by escaping through the river. Many attempts were made earlier by the police to apprehend the detenu. Special squad was formed for tracing and arresting the detenu. Frequent and discreet enquiries were made near the home and places which were frequented by the detenu. Informers were arranged to give tip off regarding the presence of the detenu. Informers were arranged to give tip off regarding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
