USHA A K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this writ petition are Exts.P1, P10 and P11 orders. By Ext.P1 order dated 23.4.2012 of the second respondent, the petitioner's husband was placed under preventive detention with immediate effect at Kannur Central Jail. It was done by the second respondent exercising his powers under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short, KAA(P)A]. Ext.P1 order has been approved by the Government, the first respondent, as per order dated 8.5.2012. The detenu preferred Ext.P8 representation before the first respondent for reviewing and revoking Ext.P1 order and for setting him free. But, that representation has been rejected by the first respondent by issuing Ext.P10 order dated 19.5.2012. The detenu also preferred Ext.P9 representation before the Advisory Board for revoking the detention order and for setting him free. The Advisory Board submitted a report dated 26.6.2012 finding that there was sufficient cause to detain the detenu and recommended for his continued detention. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued Ext.P11 order dated 4.7.2012 confirming the order of detention. Based on Ext.P1 order, the detenu has been under detention from 1.5.2012 onwards. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P10 and P11 orders on various grounds in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Smt. C.G. Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Exhibit P4 preliminary report for action against the detenu under KAA(P)A has been submitted by the fourth respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ulikkal Police Station. Ext.P3 Final Report for action against the detenu under KAA(P)A has been submitted by the third respondent, the District Police Chief, Kannur, before the second respondent, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kannur. Three criminal cases were relied on by the authorities for finding the detenu as 'known goonda' and for finding that he is indulging himself in anti-social activities necessitating his detention. Out of them, in one case, the detenu was convicted and sentenced and in other two cases he was charge sheeted. The details of those cases are as follows: