Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1052 (KER)

Jasheela T. M, W/o Abbas v. State Of Kerala

2022-12-06

ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS

body2022
JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Crl.), seeking for issuance of writs of Habeas Corpus and certiorari, in regard to the challenge against the order to preventively detain the detenu herein, in terms of Sec.3(i) Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred as 'KAAPA' for short] are as follows : “i. To declare the period of detention beyond the Report dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Advisory Board, Respondent No.2 as illegal and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution; ii. To declare that the Exhibit P-10 Order bearing G.P.(Rt) No.2922/2022/HOME dated 21.10.2022 issued by Government of Kerala is unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution; iii. To issue appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Exhibit P-10 Order bearing G.P.(Rt) No.2922/2022/HOME dated 21.10.2022 issued by Government of Kerala' iv. To issue appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Exhibit P-2 Order of Detention bearing No.DCKKD/5207/2022-S2 dated 27.06.2022 passed by District Collector/District Magistrate, Kozhikode, Respondent No.4; v. To direct the concerned authorities to release the detenue 'Bushar Jamhar' and set him at liberty forthwith. vi. Grant such other direction or order, deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.Mathew A.Kuzhalnadan, learned Advocate instructed by Smt.Sradhaxna Mudrika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu involved in this case (Bushar Jamhar, aged 29 years, S/o Abbas), who has been ordered to be detained in terms of Ext.P-2 order dated 27.06.2022, issued by the 4th respondent (District Collector/District Magistrate, Kozhikode), whereby it has been ordered that, in view of the aspects mentioned therein, the 4th respondent is satisfied that the detention of the detenu under Sec.3(i) of the KAAPA is necessary, to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities, as understood in Sec.2 (a) of the KAAPA. 4. 4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows : The District Police Chief concerned, as the sponsoring authority, has submitted a report dated 24.04.2022, recommending to the 4th respondent-District Magistrate, who is the authorized detaining authority, that, in view of the factual details given therein, it is a fit case to enable the 4th respondent to invoke the powers under Sec.3(i) of the KAAPA, in order to issue orders to preventively detain the detenu, so as to prevent him from committing further prejudicial activities. 11 crimes, in which the detenu has been involved as an accused, have been stated in the said report of the sponsoring authority. Seven crimes out of the said 11 cases have been reckoned by the 4th respondent and he has issued Ext.P-2 detention order dated 27.06.2022, ordering that the detenu is to be detained under Sec.3(i) of the Act, etc. The last prejudicial activity, said to be committed by the detenu in this case, is on 07.03.2022. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in that case on 14.04.2022 and later, he was released on bail on 07.05.2022. Ext.P-2 detention order was executed by the arrest of the detenu on 29.06.2022. Proposal was sent by the 4th respondent, for the approval of the Government on 01.07.2022. The Government has issued order dated 12.07.2022, approving Ext.P-2 detention order. Thereafter, the Government has referred the matter for the opinion of the Advisory Board on 15.07.2022. The Advisory Board has given its opinion in the matter on 26.08.2022. The Government has thereafter issued Ext.P-10 G.O (Rt.) No.2922/2022/Home dated 21.10.2022, confirming Ext.P-2 detention order. The details of the seven crimes, reckoned by the 4th respondent (Detaining Authority), in the issuance of Ext.P-2 detention order has been stated with its factual details in Ext.P-2 as well as in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent-State Government. No serious factual disputes are raised as against the correctness of those averments. So, there is no serious dispute raised by the petitioner that, going by the factual details regarding those seven crimes, the detenu would satisfy the requirements of 'known rowdy', as defined as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the KAAPA. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are two-fold. So, there is no serious dispute raised by the petitioner that, going by the factual details regarding those seven crimes, the detenu would satisfy the requirements of 'known rowdy', as defined as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the KAAPA. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are two-fold. (i) The first contention is that a reading of Ext.P-10 would make it clear that the Advisory Board has given opinion on 26.08.2022 that, though there is sufficient cause for the issuance of Ext.P-2 detention order, the Government may pass an order confirming Ext.P-2 detention order, subject to the modification that the remaining period of detention may be regulated with the direction that the detenu may appear before the SHO, Peroorkada on three days mentioned therein. Whereas, the Government has given a go-bye to the said recommendation of the Advisory Board, by not acting upon the said recommendation in favour of the detenu and has passed an order as per Ext.P-10, confirming the detention order, ordering that the period of detention would be for a period of six months from 29.06.2022 (the date of actual detention of the detenu). (ii) The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the mandatory provision contained in the first limb of Sec.3(iii) of the KAAPA, which stipulates that the detention order, with all the relevant records, should be forthwith communicated by the authorized detaining authority to the State Government, has been violated, inasmuch as though Ext.P-2 detention order has been issued on 27.06.2022, it is admitted by the respondents that the said detention order has been communicated to the Government only on 01.07.2022. The petitioner in that regard would place reliance on the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case in Anupama.S.V v. State of Kerala & Ors. [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ]. 6. Both the abovesaid pleas are strongly opposed by the learned Prosecutor. We need not get in to those details, as we propose to give our separate findings on each of these two contentions. Contention - A 7. The details of the first contention are as follows : That, Ext.P-2 detention order has been issued on 27.06.2022 and that, after approval of Ext.P-2 detention order on 12.07.2022, the Government had referred the matter, for the opinion of the Advisory Board, on 15.07.2022. Contention - A 7. The details of the first contention are as follows : That, Ext.P-2 detention order has been issued on 27.06.2022 and that, after approval of Ext.P-2 detention order on 12.07.2022, the Government had referred the matter, for the opinion of the Advisory Board, on 15.07.2022. Further that, a reading of para 3 of Ext.P-10 order would make it clear that the Advisory Board has given report dated 26.08.2022, stating that, though there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the Government may pass an order confirming the order of the detaining authority, subject to the modification that for the remaining period of detention, the detenu shall appear before the SHO, Peroorkada on three days mentioned therein, etc. Further, clarification was sought for from the Advisory Board, regarding the abovesaid aspect and the Advisory Board has again given a clarification, as per letter dated 12.10.2022, about his reference, as made in para 4 of Ext.P-10, to the effect that the Government has the discretion in fixing the period of detention and that though the maximum period of first detention under the Act is six months, the Government has the discretion to fix a period for a lesser period, but not more than six months, etc. The contents of paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of Ext.P-10 order, extracting the relevant contents of the Advisory Board's opinion, reads as follows : “3. As required under Section 9 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, the case of Sri.Bushar Jamhar, S/o Abbas, Cherikkunnummal Veedu, Paingotupuram P.O., Peringalam, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode Districtg was referred to the Advisory Board, Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act as per Government letter read as 3rd above. After perusing the relevant records, the Advisory Board in its Report read as 4th paper above has held as follows:- 1) There is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, namely: Sri.Bushar Jamhar, aged 29 years, S/o.Abbas, Cherikkunnummal Veedu, Paingottupuram. P.O., Peringalam, Kozhikkode District. After perusing the relevant records, the Advisory Board in its Report read as 4th paper above has held as follows:- 1) There is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, namely: Sri.Bushar Jamhar, aged 29 years, S/o.Abbas, Cherikkunnummal Veedu, Paingottupuram. P.O., Peringalam, Kozhikkode District. 2) Government may pass an order confirming the order of the detaining authority subject to the modification that for the remaining period of detention he shall appear before the Station House Officer, Peroorkada on all Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays between 5 P.M. and 6 P.M subject to the rider that any failure to do so on three occasions without the permission of the Station House Officer will result in cancelling the order by the Government after giving the detenue an opportunity to show cause and in which case the detenu will have to undergo the remaining period of detention as ordered by the detaining authority. 4. In the letter read as 7th paper read above, the Advisory Board has clarified as follows, in response to the letter read as 6th paper above:- “.... In every cases, where the Advisory Board has reported that there are sufficient causes for the detention of the person concerned, the Government may continue the detention of the person for such period as it thinks fit (emphasis supplied) in accordance with the Section 10(4) of the Act. The Board is of the view that it is for the Government to pass maximum period of detention in every case and the Government have discretion in fixing the period of detention which the Government may deem fit and proper. To put up it differently, the maximum period for the first detention under the Act is only for 6 months. However, the Government have discretion in fixing the period for lessor period but not more than 6 months. As per the scheme of the Act, it is purely within the discretion of the Government to fix the period of detention . The discretion may be exercised fixing the Period of detention as per the scheme of the Act. The reasons stated in para 21 of the advice is not obligatory.” 8. As per the scheme of the Act, it is purely within the discretion of the Government to fix the period of detention . The discretion may be exercised fixing the Period of detention as per the scheme of the Act. The reasons stated in para 21 of the advice is not obligatory.” 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the abovesaid specific recommendation of the Advisory Board, that though there is sufficient cause for the issuance of Ext.P-2 detention order, the Government may limit the period of detention, in the manner recommended therein, has been violated by the State Government, as can be seen from Ext.P-10 confirmation order, where it has been ordered that Ext.P-2 detention order would be in force for a period of six months from the date of the detention (i.e. six months from 29.06.2022). Hence, it is urged by the petitioner that the abovesaid decision making process of the Government, acting in contravention of the considered recommendations of the Advisory Board, would render the impugned order illegal and ultra vires, etc. 9. The abovesaid contention is seriously opposed by the learned Prosecutor. 10. Sec.9 of the Act mandates that, in every case a detention order has been made under the Act, the Government is obliged, within three weeks from the detention of the person, to place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the affected person, etc. 11. Further, Sec.10(1) mandates that the Advisory Board will render its opinion to the Government, as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same, within nine weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. Hence, a reading of Sec.10(1) would make it clear, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the jurisdiction conferred on the Advisory Board is to consider the various aspects and then tender its considered opinion to the State Government, as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, as per the impugned detention order. 12. 12. Sec.10(4) would further mandate that, where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, then the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period, as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 13. So, it is clear that where the Advisory Board gives its opinion that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, then the Government is obliged to accept the same and shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. Whereas, if the Advisory Board gives the opinion that there is sufficient cause, then, going by Sec.10(4), the Government may pass an order, confirming the detention order, for the continuance of the detention of the person concerned, for such period as it thinks fit. But, Sec.13(1) gives jurisdiction to the State Government to revoke or modify the detention order at any time. So, even if the Advisory Board gives the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the Government, for good reasons, may invoke its discretion under Sec.13 and may revoke or modify the detention order at any time. 14. The heart of the matter is that, where the Advisory Board gives an opinion that there is no sufficient cause, then the Government is obliged to accept the same. In contradistinction to the powers conferred under the Advisory Board, to deal with the detention order under Sec.3(1), it may also be appropriate to examine the corresponding provisions in a case falling under Sec.15, relating to the externment of a person concerned. 15. Sec.15(1) authorizes the competent authority concerned to consider various aspects and pass an order of externment, in terms of the parameters mentioned in that provision. 16. 15. Sec.15(1) authorizes the competent authority concerned to consider various aspects and pass an order of externment, in terms of the parameters mentioned in that provision. 16. Sec.15(2) provides that a person aggrieved by an externment order under Sec.15(1), may represent before the Advisory Board, within 15 days of the date of service of the order and the Advisory Board on receipt of such representation, may consider the same and after enquiring into the facts and circumstances, shall within 30 days of the date of receipt of such representation, annul, amend or confirm the order, either in part or in full, in such manner, as it may deem fit. So, it can be seen that a larger jurisdiction is conferred on the Advisory Board, while dealing with the case of externment, in terms of Sec.15(2) and after relevant consideration, the Advisory Board can either annul, amend or confirm the externment order either in part or full. In contradistinction to the wider power under Sec.15(2), the jurisdiction conferred to the Government under Sec.10(1) in relation to giving of its opinion on a detention under Sec.3(1) of the Act, is very limited and the limited jurisdiction is that the Advisory Board, under Sec.10(1), may give its opinion, as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention under Sec.3(1) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Advisory Board is on a limited bandwidth, in terms of Sec.10(1). Hence, in the instant case, after holding that there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention of the detenu in this case, in terms of Sec.3(2) order, the Advisory Board has exceeded its jurisdiction and has made the abovesaid recommendations that the Government may pass an order, confirming the order of detention, but subject to the modification that the detenu may appear before the SHO concerned. The latter part of the recommendation, as referred to in para 3 of Ext.P-10, was certainly beyond the jurisdiction of the Advisory Board, in terms of Sec.10(1) and hence, was not binding on the Government. Whereas, the former part of the recommendation that there is sufficient cause, can be considered and acted upon by the Government. The Government has chosen to not to act upon the latter part and has chosen to accept the former part, which is very much within the jurisdiction of the State Government. Whereas, the former part of the recommendation that there is sufficient cause, can be considered and acted upon by the Government. The Government has chosen to not to act upon the latter part and has chosen to accept the former part, which is very much within the jurisdiction of the State Government. As to whether or not the discretion of the State Government under Sec.13(1) is to be exercised or not, is a matter within the province and domain of the State Government. Hence, we are not in a position to countenance the first contention raised by the petitioner and the same will stand repelled. Contention – B The specific contention in that regard is that, though Ext.P-2 detention order has been passed on 27.06.2022, the same has been communicated to the Government only on 01.07.2022 and the same would amount to a breach of the mandate contained in the first limb of Sec.3(3) of the Act, which stipulates that the Government shall forthwith communicate a copy of the detention order and the supporting records. 17. The matter in issue is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the petitioner and by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, as in the case in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ]. The Division Bench of this Court in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ] has placed reliance on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur & Ors. [ (2018) 9 SCC 562 ] and has held that the provisions contained in Sec.3(4) of the National Security Act, which was the subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court in Hetchin Haokip's case supra [ (2018) 9 SCC 562 ], is broadly analogous to the provisions contained in Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA. In Hetchin Haokip's case supra [ (2018) 9 SCC 562 ], the Apex Court held that, in view of the abovesaid mandate contained in Sec.3(4) of the National Security Act, the competent authority is obliged to forthwith communicate the detention order, etc., to the Government and failing to do so will vitiate the decision making process. 18. In Hetchin Haokip's case supra [ (2018) 9 SCC 562 ], the Apex Court held that, in view of the abovesaid mandate contained in Sec.3(4) of the National Security Act, the competent authority is obliged to forthwith communicate the detention order, etc., to the Government and failing to do so will vitiate the decision making process. 18. A specific contention was urged by the State in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ] that the second limb of Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA only stipulates that the detention order should be approved by the State Government, within 12 days from the date of actual detention of the detenu (and not from the date of issuance of the detention order), after excluding public holidays. Whereas, the corresponding provision in the National Security Act, as per Sec.3(4) thereof, is that the State Government has to approve the detention order, within 12 days from the date of issuance of the detention order and not from the date of the actual detention of the detenu. The said contention of the State was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ], by holding that the Statute, as per the first limb of Sec.3(3), mandates that the detaining authority shall forthwith communicate a copy of the detention order with all relevant documents. Further that, the Government has the discretionary power under Sec.13(1) of the Act to revoke or modify the detention order at any time and that, in a given case, if the Government is convinced that the detention order is to be revoked or modified immediately, then the Government should have relevant materials before it, etc. 19. After hearing both sides, we are in full agreement with the well-considered views rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ] on the abovesaid aspect. The Division Bench of this Court in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ], as held in paras 9 to 12 thereof, which read as follows : “9. Hetchin Haokip (supra) was a decision later to Arifa Beevi (supra), where the provisions under the National Security Act 1980 (for brevity the 'NSA') came up for consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ], as held in paras 9 to 12 thereof, which read as follows : “9. Hetchin Haokip (supra) was a decision later to Arifa Beevi (supra), where the provisions under the National Security Act 1980 (for brevity the 'NSA') came up for consideration. In considering S.3(4) of the NSA, which is in pari materia with S.3(3) of KAA(P)A it was held that S.3(4) has to be understood in relation to the scheme of the Act and not in isolation. S.3 (4) of the NSA requires the Detention Order made by an authorised officer to be communicated forthwith to the Government, along with grounds of detention and any other relevant facts. It is also provided that no such order shall remain in force unless, within twelve days of detention, the Government approves the same. The NSA had a proviso; not available in KAA(P)A, which extended the twelve days to fifteen, if under S.8 the grounds of detention are supplied to the detenue, after five days, but within ten days from the date of detention. S.8 required the grounds of detention to be supplied, as soon as may be, within five days from the date of detention, in ordinary circumstances and within ten days, under exceptional circumstances, with reasons for the delay recorded in writing. Comparing S.3(4) with S.8, the High Court reasoned that, the purpose of sending the report to the State Government is to enable the State Government to decide whether or not to approve the order of detention, within twelve days of detention; failing which the order will lapse anyway. Finding that, the requirement under S.8 stands on a higher pedestal, S.3(4) was interpreted in isolation, to find that when the grounds of detention need to be communicated to the detenue only within five days, it would not have been contemplated that the report with the grounds, ought to be send to the State Government, immediately or instantaneously. The rationale, was that supply of grounds of detention to the detenue was sacrosanct, as a right guaranteed under Art.22(5); while the supply of the order to the Government was only to enable the approval within 12 days of detention. The rationale, was that supply of grounds of detention to the detenue was sacrosanct, as a right guaranteed under Art.22(5); while the supply of the order to the Government was only to enable the approval within 12 days of detention. If within 12 days the approval is granted, then there would be no prejudice caused by delay in sending the order to the Government, was the reasoning as the Division Bench of this Court too reasoned in Arifa Beevi (supra). 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. The Commissioner Of Police ( AIR 1957 SC 28 ), to deprecate the reasoning of the High Court. Therein the meaning of 'forthwith' was clearly -stated to be different from 'as soon as may be'. What was contemplated by the latter, was only 'what is reasonably convenient' while under S.3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act 1950, only that period of time is allowed, where the Authority could not, without its own fault, send the report. The following test was laid down in paragraphs 15 & 16 of Hetchin Haokip (supra), extracted here under: "14. The High Court is not correct in holding that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within twelve days of detention, it will not prejudice the detenu. It is settled law that a statute providing for preventive detention has to be construed strictly. While "forthwith" may be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without undue delay, it certainly should not be laid down as a principle of law that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within 12 days of detention, it will not prejudice the detenu. Under S.3(4), the State Government is required to give its approval to an order of detention within twelve, or as the case may be, fifteen days. 15. The expression "forthwith" under S.3(4), must be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without any undue delay. This would not mean that the detaining authority has a period of twelve days to submit the report (with grounds) to the State Government from the date of detention. The detaining authority must furnish the report at the earliest possible. 15. The expression "forthwith" under S.3(4), must be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without any undue delay. This would not mean that the detaining authority has a period of twelve days to submit the report (with grounds) to the State Government from the date of detention. The detaining authority must furnish the report at the earliest possible. Any delay between the date of detention and the date of submitting the report to the State Government, must be due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the authority and not because of administrative laxity." In Hetchin Haokip (supra) there was a delay of five days in sending the detention order to the Government, which was not mentioned or explained in the final order of the State Government. There being no satisfactory explanation, the order was said to be vitiated. 11. In WP(Crl) No.516 of 2022 the order was dated 21.02.2022; an e -mail with attachment is said to have been sent on 25.02.2022 after four days and the physical file sent on 26.02.2022. The learned Government Pleader on instructions, submitted that the files were entrusted for transmission to the State Government on 21.02.2022. Mere entrustment, for the purpose of transmission, would not be due compliance of the mandate under S.3(3), since it is incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to send forthwith, the order of detention, on its making; which should necessarily find its way to the Government forthwith, failing which there is no due compliance. We also have to notice that despite the order of the Advisory Board dated 18.04.2022 having been received by the Government, the same was not acted upon immediately. The order is said to have been received on 22.04.2022 and more than 20 days were taken to confirm the same, which is grossly delayed. We find no reason to refer the issue of the absence of a Final Report, since the impugned order is otherwise vitiated. We reject the contention regarding the last crime, not being sufficient for consideration under S.2(p) of the KAA(P)A for reason of a final report having not been filed before the impugned order was passed, relying on Stenny Aleyamma Saju (supra). 12. We reject the contention regarding the last crime, not being sufficient for consideration under S.2(p) of the KAA(P)A for reason of a final report having not been filed before the impugned order was passed, relying on Stenny Aleyamma Saju (supra). 12. The learned G.P attempted to distinguish Hetchin Haokip (supra) on the ground that the NSA prescribes forthwith report, with the grounds on which the order is made together with such other relevant particulars, whereas KAA(P)A does not have that prescription. We immediately reject the contention as misplaced and factually unsustainable. S.3(3) of KAA(P)A requires forthwith report, together with copy of the order and supporting records, having a bearing in the matter. In essence both the enactments require the very same report, which should contain the grounds and every material substantiating the grounds; which also is a sacrosanct right, since the Government under S.13 is clothed with the power to revoke the order at anytime; even immediate to the making of the order and before a detention is effected.” 20. That apart, we would also say that the second limb of Sec.3(3) mandates that the Government shall take a decision on the approval of the detention order, within 12 days from the date of detention of the detenu, after excluding public holidays. So also, it is stipulated, in the first limb of Sec.3(3), that the authorised detaining authority should forthwith communicate a copy of the detention order, along with all relevant documents, to the Government. Therefore, a copy of the detention order and the relevant documents should immediately reach the Government, so that the competent authority of the State Government will get sufficient time to examine the factual details and all the relevant records in relation to the detention order and then make a decision regarding the issue of approval, well before the expiry of the time limit of 12 days. It is not as if the Government has to wait till the last minute. If the copy of the detention order and the relevant documents do not immediately reach the Government, then the competent authority may not get sufficient time to examine various details and take a considered decision and it is quite likely that the Government may be constrained to hasten up the decision making process. If the copy of the detention order and the relevant documents do not immediately reach the Government, then the competent authority may not get sufficient time to examine various details and take a considered decision and it is quite likely that the Government may be constrained to hasten up the decision making process. It is only in public interest, that the Government gets sufficient time to examine the full factual details, to decide as to whether or not the detention order should be approved, etc., and for that, the Legislature has made a mandatory provision that a copy of the detention order and the relevant document should be forthwith communicated by the detaining authority to the Government. Some of these aspects have been dealt with in a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rishada Haris v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 725]. 21. In the instant case, there is no dispute that Ext.P-2 detention order has been passed on 27.06.2022, whereas a copy of Ext.P-2 detention order and the copy of the said detention order and the connected documents were communicated by the 4th respondent-District Collector to the 1st respondent (State Government), only as per letter No.S2-5207/22 dated 01.07.2022, a copy of which has been made available by the learned Prosecutor, for our perusal. In Anupama's case supra [ 2022 (5) KHC 281 ], instead of forthwith communicating the detention order and the relevant records, the detaining authority had communicated the same only after four days. In the instant case also, the time taken is four days, which would vitiate the decision making process. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground. 22. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-2 detention order No.DCKKD/5207/2022-S2 dated 27.06.2022, issued by the 4th respondent (District Collector/District Magistrate, Kozhikode), as confirmed by Ext.P-10 G.O(Rt.) No.2922/2022/Home dated 21.10.2022, issued by the competent authority of the 1st respondent-State Government in the Home Department, will stand quashed and set aside. Consequently, it is ordered that the respondents herein, more particularly, the 6th respondent-Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur District (where the detenu is now detained), shall forthwith release the detenu involved in this case (Sri.Bushar Jamhar, aged 29 years, S/o.Abbas) from detention and set him at liberty, if his further detention is not required in connection with any other cases. 23. 23. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will forward copies of this judgment to the respondents, for necessary information and immediate compliance. With these observations and directions, the above W.P(Crl.) will stand finally disposed of.