Basant, J.

Notwithstanding the caution administered in many binding precedents of the need of the detaining authority to properly apply its mind to the relevant facts before passing an order of preventive detention and of the need for those reasons to get reflected in the order of detention, we are again called upon in this case to consider the grievance ofthe petitioner that there has been no proper application of mind and that such application of mind is not, at any rate, reflected in the order of detention or in any contemporaneous records. We are disturbed that there is room for such contentions too frequently before us and that in spite of the several earlier precedents, the administrative executive has not still been trained and educated of the need to pass a proper order of detention before a citizen is deprived of his most sacrosanct and cherished constitutional right of personal freedom and liberty. We may repeat that if the legislative concern to protect the citizen by curbing anti-social activities of known rowdies and known goondas is to achieve its result, the wielders of administrative power will have to be trained and equipped to discharge their very solemn responsibilities under the KAAPA with clinical precision and expertise.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the production and direct the release of his son Binil Joseph (hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’) who stands preventively detained by Ext.P1 order dated 13/5/10 passed by the 2nd respondent – District Magistrate, under Sec.3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAAPA’). The detenu, a young man aged 24 years, a student, was taken into custody in execution of Ext.P1 order on 17/5/10. Order of approval under Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA and order of confirmation under Sec.10(4) of the KAAPA have already been passed and the detenu will have to continue in custody till 17/11/10, it is submitted and conceded.

3. The detenu has been classified as a ‘known rowdy’. It is alleged that he is involved in 6 crimes, details of which are given below in the tabular form:

Sl.No Crime No. & Police Station Date of occurrence Offences U/s Rank of the detenu in the array of accused Current status of the case

10/2007 of Varappuzha Police Station 14/1/2007 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 427 r/w 149 IPC A4 Originally not named in FIR. Added as accused on 16/1/2007 Charge sheeted. Pending as C.C. 156/2008 before JFCM-1, North Paravur.

2 155/2007 of Varappuzha Police Station 25/6/2007 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC A2 Charge sheeted. Pending as CC.341/2008 before JFCM-1, North Paravur

3 91/2007 of Varappuzha Police Station 15/4/2007 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC & Secs.20 and 27 of Arms Act A6. Originally not named in FIR Charge sheeted. Pending as S., C.142/09 before Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), North Paravur.

4 33/2010 of Varappuzha Police Station 17/1/2010 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 IPC A7. Originally not named in FIR Charge sheeted on 31/3/10 before JFCM-1, North Paravur. No number.

5 116/2010 of North Paravur Police Station 18/1/2010 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC A2 Under investigation 6 196/2010 of Aluva Police Station. (Not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority) 19/1/2010 225(b) of IPC Sole Accused Charge sheeted on 13/3/2010 before JFCM-1, Aluva. No number.

4. There is no contention that the detenu is not a known rowdy. As indicated in the tabular column, in Case – Sl.No.5, investigation is not complete; but following the dictum in Elizebath George v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 425), the detaining authority is justified in reckoning Case – Sl.No.5 also as relevant to include the detenu under the definition of ‘known rowdy’. Case – Sl.No.6 has not been considered by the detaining authority as that case does not fall within the sweep of Sec.2(p) of the KAAPA. It is not too significan