IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA, 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 486 of 2009() -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYISHA W/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 60 YEARS, THATTANKARA HOUSE, AKALAD.P.O., CHEVAKKAD VIA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TRICHUR. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 SRI P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) 486 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JANUARY 15, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The son of the petitioner has been detained under Ext.P1 order dated 1.10.2009. The order was implemented and the detenu was arrested on 10.10.2009. The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus and also to quash Ext.P1 order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.G. Rajendran and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged various contentions before us, but we do not think it is necessary t go into the various contentions raised by the petitioner as we feel that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and to an order holding that the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal on one short ground. The petitioner has admittedly filed Ext.P5 representation dated 14.10.2009. The learned Government Pleader took time to ascertain whether the representation has been disposed of. Today he would submit that Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered and order passed thereon. He would point out that there was a representation filed by the petitioner on 17.10.2009 and the said WP(Crl.)486/09 2 representation was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2009. There is no dispute that the non-consideration of the representation by the detenu (Ext.P5) is sufficient for this court to hold that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the authority proceeded to consider the representation of the petitioner and disposed the same as that of the detenu. Unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation by the detenu is sufficient to warrant an order being passed terminating the further detention and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to an order to the effect that the continued detention of the petitioner's son is illegal. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and we hold that the continued detention of the petitioner's son is illegal. He shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not wanted in any other case. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Superintendent of Jail, Viyyur to implement this judgment. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-