AJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions involved in this Writ Petition are the following:

(2.) Aggrieved by Ext. Pl order, the petitioner made a representation before the Advisory Board under sub-s. (2) of S. 15 of the KAAPA. The Advisory Board, who passed Ext. P2 order dated 25.2.2013, did not interfere with the order passed by the second respondent except to the extent of reducing the period of internment to nine months from the date of service of the order impugned. The Advisory Board held that the petitioner cannot be termed as a "known rowdy", since two of the crimes, namely, Crime Nos. 133 of 2011 and 565 of 2011, were registered at Koyipram Police Station, outside the jurisdiction of the second respondent. The Advisory Board also held that out of the remaining three cases, two cases are under the Abkari Act and therefore, they do not come under the scope of the definition of "known rowdy". It was held that the remaining one case does not satisfy the definition of "known rowdy" since it requires three separate instances under sub-clause (iii) of clause (p) of S. 2 of the KAAPA. However, the Advisory Board held that the petitioner satisfies the definition of "known goonda" under S. 2(o) of the KAAPA. The Advisory Board also took the view that the order under S. 15(1) can be sustained on the ground that the petitioner is a "known goonda" and the Advisory Board has the power to amend the ground under S. 15(1) from "known rowdy" to "known goonda" to sustain an order under S. 15(1).

(3.) The relevant part of Section 15 of the KAAPA is extracted below for convenience: