FACTS OF THE CASE
- The present writ is seeking writ petition of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce petitioner’s father who is detained under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act).
- The petitioner alleges that the detention is illegal and thus petitioner’s father should be set free.
- The order dated 07.12.2022 was approved by the government on the premise that petitioner’s father was popular as ‘rowdy’ and to prevent him from anti-social activity, it was ordered to detained him.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
- The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of petitioner contended that the detention is illegal since the procedural requirement under Section 3(3) of the Act was not followed. The counsel referred to the case of Anupama S.V. v. State of Kerala, to support the contention.
- It was argued that the respondent have not satisfactorily explained the delay caused in the detention made on 07.12.2022 of the alleged prejudicial activity in the detention order that took place on 17.06.2022.
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the procedural activity as per section 3(3) was complied and the documents were communicated to the government by the authorizing officer.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the detention order by the government.
- Court held that the explanation given by the respondent in the detention order is in a casual manner. It is not satisfactory explained.
- Court observed that the authorities were obliged to act vigilantly while dealing matters under the said act.
- Court observed that the question regarding procedural requirement is categorically met as per the provisions of the Act which is evident from the counter affidavit. The petitioner has not replied refuting the contention.