SAIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order, issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), detaining his son Sunny (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu' for short).

(2.) The detenu is the accused in Crime Nos.517/11, 581/11 and 586/11 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station and Crime Nos.939/11, 940/11, 1062/11, 1063/11, 1071/11 and 674/13 of the Chavara Police Station. Pointing out his involvement in the above crimes and requesting for his classification as a 'known rowdy' under Section 2(p) of the Act and his detention under Section 3 thereof, the 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P3 report dated 28/6/13 to the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the report, the 2nd respondent, the detaining authority, initiated action and issued Ext.P1 order dated 24/7/13. In this order, after dealing with the facts and circumstances of each of the case in which the detenu is the accused, the 2nd respondent held him to be a 'known rowdy' under Section 2(p) of the Act. Thereafter, stating that he was satisfied that for maintaining the public tranquility of the area and to prevent the detenu from continuing his anti-social activities, it was necessary to keep him under detention, the 2nd respondent ordered that he be kept under detention under Section 3 of the Act. At that time, the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.1159/13 and therefore, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station, submitted report dated 27/8/13 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagapally. Accordingly, learned Magistrate issued Ext.P6 memorandum permitting Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara to arrest the detenu in the presence of the Superintendent of the District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P6, he was arrested in execution of Ext.P1 on 2/9/13. Ext.P2 is the grounds of detention, Ext.P7 is the memo for execution and Ext.P8 is the jail admission authorization.

(3.) The detention was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the Act by its order dated 24/9/13. Subsequently, reference was made to the Advisory Board on 25/9/13 and the Advisory Board submitted its report dated 22/10/13. Accordingly, the Government issued order dated 6/11/13 confirming the detention as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is in this background, the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of detention and further proceedings that are taken thereunder.