CLARENCE ANTO Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of his brother Shyam Antony alias Airport Shyam who is detained as per Ext.P1 order dated 18/2/2010 passed by the second respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA).

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in detail. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the sole ground that there has been no proper application of mind by the detaining authority before the order of detention was passed. In support of this, he has advanced various contentions. On the basis of the arguments advanced, we feel that the only question to be considered is:

(3.) We deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail before proceeding to consider the question. Against the petitioner, several cases have been initiated. It is unnecessary to refer to all the cases as it is not disputed before us that he falls within the sweep of the expression 'known rowdy' under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. In view of that acceptance, we do not proceed to narrate the details of the cases. We proceed on the admitted premise that on the date of detention, the detenu is a known rowdy answering the definition of that expression in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA.