FOUSIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Althaf @ Issac, the son of the petitioner, was detained in execution of the order of detention dated 30.1.2012 issued under S. 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'), on his arrest on 4.2.2012. The order of detention is under challenge in the Writ Petition. (The order of detention is not produced along with the Writ Petition. The grounds of detention are produced as Ext. P1 in the Writ Petition. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext. P1. However, after perusing the original records and taking into account the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to consider the validity of the order of detention.) There is no dispute that the approval of the order of detention under S. 3(3) and confirmation of the order of detention under S. 10(4) of the KAAPA were duly made within the time stipulated.

(2.) In the order of the detention, mention is made about five crimes in which the detenu was involved. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu is a "known-rowdy" as defined under S. 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA and that if he remained at large, he would involve in anti-social activities with reference to the public peace and order, which would directly or indirectly cause harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity or cause threat to the public life and property. There is no dispute that the five crimes referred to in the order of detention are sufficient to attract the definition of "known-rowdy" under S. 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in the grounds of detention reference is made to five crimes, the grounds of detention refers to four other crimes. Copies of documents in respect of those four crimes were not supplied to the detenu. It is contended that since the grounds of detention are at variance with the order of detention, it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is valid and genuine. It is to be noted that this point raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not seen raised in the Writ Petition. Still, we were inclined to consider the point raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner only on the ground that the detenu is under preventive detention.