(1.) The petitioner has come to this court for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to cause the production of and direct the release of her husband Victor, S/o. Youhanan who is under detention by Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent under S.3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'). The said order was issued on 28.10.2009. The detenu was taken into custody in execution of that order on 6.11.2009. The order of approval under S.3(3) of the KAAPA has already been passed by the Government. The order of confirmation under S. 10(4) of the KAAPA has not been passed so far. The detenu has been classified as a known goonda. Reliance is placed on five cases. The following are the five cases relied upon: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_172_KERLT1_2010Html1.htm</FRM>
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Various grounds of challenge are raised. For the purpose of resolving the controversy in this Writ Petition, we are satisfied that only the following ground need be considered. "There is no material to show that the detenu is a known goonda under S.2(o)(ii) of the KAAPA."
(3.) It is trite that the detaining authority must entertain twin satisfaction to justify the passing of an order of detention under S.3 of the KAAPA. The former is the threshold, initial, objective satisfaction that the detenu is a known goonda or known rowdy. After entertaining that satisfaction the authority must further entertain the latter subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu is necessary to prevent him from indulging in anti-social activities. If is only after entertaining both those satisfactions that the authority can proceed to pass a valid order of detention. It is contended that at any rate the initial threshold objective satisfaction was not and could not have been entertained in this case.