Basant, J.

Is the detaining authority justified in reckoning the detenu as a `goonda', when the sponsoring authority had only reported that he is a `rowdy', to pass an order of detention under Sec.3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short `the KAAPA')? This question, inter alia, arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. To the vital facts first: The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name `Padmanabhan' who has been ordered to be detained under Sec.3 of the KAAPA under Ext.P1 order dated 29/6/09 passed by the 2nd respondent. Such detention was on the basis of a report dated 20/6/09 submitted to the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent under Sec.3(1) of the KAAPA. The detenu has been arrested on 23/7/09. The order of approval and order of confirmation have already been passed under Secs.3(3) and 10(4) of the KAAPA. The detenu thus continues in custody.

3. The 3rd respondent had sponsored the detention of the detenu on the basis of 5 cases which are given below:

Table

4. In addition to the above 5 cases referred to, there is also the circumstance relied on by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is a registered rowdy of the Valiathura Police Station and history sheet No.37 is currently maintained against him. It is admitted that such history sheet has been opened by the police only after the registration of the last crime referred above.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions have advanced arguments before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the detention of the detenu, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(i) There has been no proper application of mind by the detaining authority before Ext.P1 order of detention was passed.

(ii) The history sheet - Ext.P5, has been opened with the transparent intention of subjecting the detenu to harassment under the KAAPA and the same is hence liable to be ignored.

6. Grounds 1 and 2: Various grounds have been urged under the head of "non-application of mind" by the detaining authority. It may not be necessary to advert to all the contentions advanced under this broad head in detail. We shall advert only to the contentions which we think are most relevant.

7. It is by now trite that an order of detention under Sec.3 can be passed by the detaining authority only after he entertains both the satisfactions insisted by Sec.3 of the KAAPA. The initial threshold satisfaction must be entertained that the detenu is either a known goonda or a known rowdy. This is an objective satisfaction. There is nothing subjective in this former part of the satisfaction. On the materials placed before the detaining authority, the detaining authority must entertain the satisfaction that the detenu is a `known goonda' as defined under Sec.2(o) of the KAAPA or a `known rowdy' as defined under Sec.2(p) of the KAAPA. Unless this initial satisfaction is validly entertained by the detaining authority, there can be no possibility of a valid order of detention being passed.

8. It will be apposite straightaway to note that the requirements to bring a person within the sweep of the expression `known goonda' in Sec.2 (o) and `known rowdy' under Sec.2 (p) of the KAAPA are totally different and distinct. A `goonda' is defined under Sec.2 (j) and a `known goonda' is defined under Sec.2 (o) of the KAAPA. A `rowdy' is defined under Sec.2 (t) and a `known rowdy' is defined under Sec.2 (p) of the KAAPA. At the outset we only note that the circumstances to be established to bring a person within the sweep of `known goonda' and `known rowdy' are different and distinct.

9. We now refer to the latter satisfaction under Sec.3. After entertaining the requisite former objective threshold satisfaction, the detaining authority must be satisfied that such known goonda or known rowdy (whichever he be) deserves to be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in anti-social activity. This latter satisfa