Vimala Kumari vs State of Kerala and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner''s son, Shyam Prakash stands detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a Writ of Habeas Corpus is sought. The impugned order is sought to be quashed as also Ext.P10 order passed by the Government confirming the detention. Petitioner''s son was detained pursuant to Ext.P2 order dated 6.11.2010 on 16.12.2010.

We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. The contention addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before us is that in violation of Section 7 of the Act, the detenu was not given opportunity. She elaborates and submits that he has not been informed of his right to consult a lawyer and it is the petitioner''s mother who filed the representation before the Advisory Board and the detenu could not file representation before the Advisory Board.

Per contra, learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the grounds of detention produced as Ext.P3 in this case itself would reveal that the detenu was informed of the right to represent. He would further point out that the files would also falsify the contention of the petitioner. He relied on the communication issued by the Superintendent of Jail to the Government. The communication from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, apparently addressed to the District Collector would reveal that the Superintendent would state that he has informed the detenu about his right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice to have assistance from the Superintendent for preparation of the representation to the Government, the Advisory Board. It is also pointed out that the said communication was addressed in pursuance of the communication from the District Collector dated 6.11.2010. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner that Section 7 of the Act stands violated.

The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.