ANOOP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How are the expressions "neighbour" and "immediate neighbour" in the proviso (ii) to Section 2 (p) of the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA') to be understood This question arises for consideration in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner against whom an order of restraint has been passed by the 2nd respondent under Sec.15 of the KAAPA has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the said order of restraint may be set aside.

(3.) To the skeletal facts first. The 2nd respondent allegedly received information that the petitioner is likely to indulge in anti-social activities. The 2nd respondent also received information that the petitioner was involved in three different cases which all bring him within the sweep of the definition of 'rowdy' under Sec.2(t) of the KAAPA and consequently a 'known rowdy' under Sec.2(p) of the KAAPA. Ext.P8 notice was hence issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner giving him opportunity to make his submissions under Sec.15(1) of the KAAPA. The petitioner submitted his reply - Ext.P9, to the said notice. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent restraining the movements of the petitioner. The order of restraint is dated 3/6/09. It has been served on the petitioner on 10/6/09. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned order (Ext.P1) represented before the Advisory Board under Sec.15(2) of the KAAPA and thereupon Ext.P2 order has been passed by the Advisory Board. The petitioner in this writ petition assails the restraint placed on him under Ext.P1 and upheld in Ext.P2 orders.