Haseena P.T vs State Of Kerala

G. Girish, J

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu in Ext.P1 order passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short ‘KAA(P)A’], has filed this writ petition for a second time after the judgment dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.(Crl) No.891/2024 of this Court dismissing the said writ petition challenging the preventive detention of her son.

According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order which was confirmed by the Government vide Ext.P2 order dated 31.07.2024, is liable to be annulled for the reason that the Government had not promptly considered and disposed of Ext.P4 representation dated 31.07.2024 filed by her against the preventive detention of the detenu. It is also stated that there was non-compliance of the statutory requirements of KAA(P)A by the authorities concerned causing prejudice to the detenu.

Heard Adv.Mr.M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Mr.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

In the earlier writ petition filed on 09.08.2024 as W.P.(Crl) No.891/2024, the petitioner had raised six grounds to challenge Ext.P2 detention order. The first challenge was that the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order without arriving at the subjective or objective satisfaction on the need to pass such an order. The second ground was that the two cases considered by the authorities concerned for treating the detenu as a ‘known goonda’ were not at all qualified to be reckoned as offences coming under the purview of Section 2(p)(iii) and Section 2(t) of the KAA(P)A. As the third ground, the failure of the Detaining Authority to consider the sufficiency of proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C to rein in the detenu, was agitated. In the fourth ground, the petitioner challenged the detention alleging non-compliance of Section 10 of KAA(P)A. The failure of the authorities concerned to apply mind on the sufficiency of bail conditions was agitated as the fifth ground. The sixth ground raised in that writ petition was that the detenu was not served with legible copies of the relevant records and hence prejudice was caused to him due to his failure to study those records.

It is after considering the aforesaid challenges, and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, that we passed Ext.P3 judgment dated 11.09.2024 finding that the detenu had not made any case for interference. Now the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the preventive detention of the detenu on the main ground that the authorities concerned did not take into account Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner, and pass orders promptly.

Ext.P4 representation is dated 31.07.2024 which is just nine days prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition. Obviously, the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition without waiting for the decision of the authorities concerned in Ext.P4 representation. Now, in the present writ petition, the petitioner harps upon the main point that the failure of the authorities concerned to promptly consider Ext.P4 representation and to pass orders, has to be taken as a reason to order the release of the detenu.

The learned Government Pleader, by relying on the relevant records, submitted that Ext.P4 representation dated 31.07.2024 reached the Government on 02.08.2024, and that the request in the said representation was declined vide order dated 05.08.2024. The copy of the aforesaid decision of the 1st respondent, passed on 05.08.2024 is placed before us for our perusal. It is seen from the said decision that the 1st respondent had asserted the compliance of the constitutional safeguards and statutory procedures in the preventive detention of the detenu, and informed the petitioner that the decision in the above regard was taken after analysing all the relevant records and arriving at the objective and subjective satisfaction about the need to pass such an order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the aforesaid decision of the 1st respondent does not elaborate upon the grounds highlighted in Ext.P4 representation and hence it has to be taken that there was non-application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned. We are not impressed by the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be said that the authorities concerned shall render their decision by stating elaborately about the grounds raised by the petitioner, and the reasonings for declining to accept the same every time when the petitioner submits representations against preventive detention of the detenu. It would be sufficient if the decision rendered by the authorities concerned would disclose that the request made by the petitioner is declined on merit since it was legally and factually untenable. As far as the present case is concerned, it is pertinent to note that one of the grounds stated in Ext.P4 representation about the lack of legibility of the documents supplied to the detenu, was raised as a ground in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner as W.P.(Crl) No.891/2024, but the above challenge was not pursued at the time of arguments. So also, the petitioner did not care to bring to our notice even on 11.09.2024 when the aforesaid writ petition was heard finally, about the challenge that Ext.P4 representation was disposed of by the 1st respondent on 05.08.2024 without the application of mind. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot agitate the said ground in the present writ petition. This is especially so in view of the fact that the grounds raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation were either explicitly or implicitly considered and declined by us while dismissing W.P.(Crl) No.891/2024 on 11.09.2024. The petitioner cannot be expected to approach this Court time and again, and agitate the matters which are already finally decided in earlier proceedings.

As already stated above, the challenge raised by the petitioner about the alleged prejudice caused to the detenu due to the lack of legibility of the records furnished to him cannot be re-agitated in this writ petition since it was one of the grounds which the petitioner has raised in W.P.(Crl) No.891/2024 and omitted to pursue at the time of hearing. As regards the other grounds stated in the present writ petition, we are of the view that the crux of the issue contained in it had already been decided by us in the earlier writ petition though the petitioner had couched those grounds in a different fashion to make it appear that it were distinct from the grounds stated in the earlier writ petition.

As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2 order.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.