Muhammed Shah also Known as Mylakkad Shah vs State of Kerala

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. This writ petition has been filed challenging the detention order dated 30.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent, District Magistrate, Kollam, u/s 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, KAA(P)A) for detaining the petitioner, after finding him to be a known goonda.

The 2nd respondent relied on six criminal cases registered against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, Sand Act). The petitioner''s wife preferred Exhibit P5 representation before the 2nd respondent for revoking the order so passed against the petitioner.

Thereafter, report of the 3rd respondent, the City Police Commissioner, Kollam, was called for by the 2nd respondent on the matter. Calling for such a report was necessitated by the fact that in the criminal cases, on them the 2nd respondent has relied on for passing the detention order, the proceedings were dropped and the petitioner was released by the learned Magistrate u/s 258 of Cr.P.C. for want of complaints made by an authorised person as contemplated u/s 25 of the Sand Act. The 3rd respondent, after examining the matter, reported to the 2nd respondent that the defect so committed by the investigating agency has been corrected and proper complaints were filed before the competent Magistrate, as contemplated under the Sand Act and hence, the order of detention passed against the petitioner remains to be valid. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Government, 1st respondent, by the 2nd respondent for further orders on the validity of the detention order passed against the petitioner. The Government has not arrived at a decision on the matter so far. The detention order dated 30.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent has not been executed so far.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader rightly agree on the point that the detention order passed against the petitioner has not attained finality in view of the facts that the 2nd respondent himself thought it fit to receive further orders from the Government on the detention order passed by him and still the decision by the Government on the matter is awaited. Since the detention order has not attained finality, it is only just and proper to wait for the final orders to be passed by the Government on the matter. It is also just and proper that till the Government passes such orders on the matter, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent has to be kept in abeyance. In the result, the detention order dated 30.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent u/s 3 of KAA(P)A for detaining the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till the Government, 1st respondent, passes orders on the reference made by the 2nd respondent on the matter. The 1st respondent is directed to communicate such orders passed on the reference so made by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner as and when it is passed.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.