(1.) The question involved in the Writ Petition (Criminal) is whether detention of a person under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA') pursuant to his arrest, six months after the order of detention, is vitiated since the maximum period for which he can be detained under Section 12 of KAAPA shall not exceed six months. The petitioner is the father of Binoy, who was detained pursuant to Ext.P1 order of detention dated 27.7.2011 issued under the KAAPA. Binoy, the detenu, was arrested on 3.2.2012. The order of detention was issued on the ground that the detenu was involved in several crimes and therefore, he is to be considered as 'known rowdy' as per Section 2(p)(iii) of KAAPA. The specific case of the petitioner is that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal on two grounds. (1) The order of detention was executed after six months of the date of issue of the order. The maximum period of detention contemplated under the Act is six months. Therefore, the foundation of the order of detention is lost. (2) The detenu appeared before Court in three of the crimes referred to in the order of detention on several dates after the order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detenu was absconding. This would indicate that there was inordinate delay in executing the order of detention. The long gap in passing of the order of detention and the execution of the same has snapped the nexus between the alleged illegal activity and the order of detention.
(2.) As regards the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Soja Beegum v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2009 4 KerLT 550, wherein it was held thus:
(3.) On a careful consideration of the decision in Soja Beegum's case, we are of the view that the above quoted passage does not constitute the dictum laid down by the Division Bench. It could only be said that the aforesaid observations were made as passing reference.