KASHMIRA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the instant writ petition seeking for writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari in regard to the challenge against the preventive detention order issued under Sec. 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act 2007( KAA(P) Act, 2007) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.Ajesh M. Ummer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The factual aspects necessary for the disposal of this Writ proceedings are as follows: The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu involved in this case viz, Sri.Adarsh Chandrasekhar, aged 25 years, S/o.Chandrasekharan Nair. The 4th respondent District Police Chief concerned (who is the sponsoring authority) has given report dtd. 17/3/2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent authorized detaining authority that in view of the factual aspects stated in the said report, it is a fit case to enable the 2nd respondent to pass orders under Sec. 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act to ensure the preventive detention of the detenu as he is otherwise likely to indulge in further prejudicial anti-social activities as understood in Sec. 2(a) of the abovesaid Act. In the light of the said report, the 2nd respondent District Collector cum District Magistrate, Ernakulam has passed Ext.P1 order dtd. 29/5/2022 stating that in view of the factual aspects stated therein, the 2nd respondent is satisfied that order should be passed under Sec. 3(1) to preventively detain the detenu as he is likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities. Further, Ext.P1 detention order, along with all the relevant records/documents were forthwith communicated to the Government as required in Sec. 3(3) of the Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P1 detention order dtd. 29/5/2022 was executed on 8/6/2022. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had given the necessary proposal to the Government seeking for their approval. The first respondent State Government has issued Government order dtd. 17/6/2022 approving Ext.P1 detention order, which is within 12 days after excluding public holidays as envisaged in Sec. 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has referred the matter for the opinion of the 5th respondent Statutory Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after hearing the detenu has given their report on 5/8/2022, recommending to the Government that there is sufficient cause for preventive detention of the detenu as per Ext.P1 order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has passed Ext.P2 GO(Rt) No.2222/2022/Home dtd. 10/8/2022, confirming Ext.P1 detention order in terms of Sec. 10(4) of the Act. There is no serious dispute that the various statutory timelines, mandated in the Act like the 5 days limit for communicating the grounds of detention of the detenu under Sec. 7(2) for approval of the State Government within 12 days after excluding holidays as per Sec. 3(3), the time limit of 3 weeks from the date of detention for placing the matter before the Advisory Board, the 9 weeks time limit for the Advisory Board to give the report as per Sec. 10(1) etc and as well as the requirement as per Sec. 3(3) for forthwith communicating the detention order and the relevant records to the Government etc have been duly complied with in this case. Altogether 4 cases have been reckoned by the detaining authority out of the 6 cases reported by the sponsoring authority to enable the respondents to reckon the detenu as 'known Rowdy ' as per Sec. 2p(3) read with Sec. 2(t) of the Act. There are no serious disputes that going by the factual details in those 4 cases, the detenu would fulfill the definitional parameters of 'Known Rowdy ' as per Sec. 2p(3) read with Sec. 2(t) of the act.