Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

i) A writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to produce the person of the detenu Gopakumar @ Chinju, S/o Parameswaran Nair, Chethiyode, Koduvayoor P.O., Palakkad District before this Hon'ble Court and to set him at liberty forthwith.

(ii) Declare that Ext.P1 detention order and the detention pursuant to the same are illegal and vitiated.

(iii) Such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu was placed under preventive detention with immediate effect at Central Prison, Viyyur, by Ext.P1 order of detention dated 5.6.2012 passed by the second respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate. The second respondent has passed Ext.P1 order exercising his powers under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, KAA(P)A).

Pursuant to Ext.P1, the detenu was taken into custody by the sixth respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, on 5.6.2012 itself and admitted him to the Central Prison, Viyyur. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Central Prison, Poojappura, and he is continuing under detention there. Ext.P1 order has been approved by the Government, the first respondent, as per order dated 15.6.2012. The Advisory Board sent a report dated 2.8.2012 finding that there was sufficient cause to detain the detenu. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued order dated 9.8.2012 confirming the order of detention and directing to continue the detention for six months from the date of detention. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of detention on various grounds in this Writ Petition.

3. Heard Shri. O.V. Maniprasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Detailed arguments have been advanced by both the sides before us. They have relied on various rulings in support of their contentions.

4. The District Police Chief, third respondent, submitted Ext.P3 report dated 14.5.2012 before the second respondent requesting him to pass an order under Section 3 of KAA (P)A for detaining the detenu as he is a 'known rowdy' indulging himself in anti-social activities necessitating his detention. The second respondent, after considering Ext.P3, found the detenu to be a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p) of KAA(P)A. The second respondent, in Ext.P1 detention order, relied on the following six criminal cases in which the detenu is involved:

Sl. No. Crime Number Name of Police Station Date of Occurrence Offences Alleged

1 371 of 2008 Kozhinjampara 02.09.2008 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 328, 342, 427 and 149 of IPC

2 526 of 2008 Town South, Palakkad 22.09.2008 143, 147, 341, 506 (ii) and149 of IPC

3 434 of 2010 Pudunagaram 18.09.2010 452, 341, 294(b) and 427 ofIPC

4 163 of 2011 Pudunagaram 14.04.2011 324 and 294(b) of IPC

5 87 of 2012 Pudunagaram 08/09.02.2012 447, 427, 452 and 34 of IPC

294(b) and

10-03-

156 of 2012 Pudunagaram

506(i) of

2010

IPC In all these cases, after investigation, Final Reports have been filed before the courts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P2 grounds of detention, the second respondent specifically stated that the third respondent submitted a proposal dated 25.6.2011 for passing an order of detention under KAA(P)A against the detenu based on the first four cases out of the six cases now relied on. But, as stated in Ext.P2, that proposal was returned to the third respondent by the second respondent finding that no cases enabling to take action under KAA(P)A were there. Therefore, the proposal so made by the third respondent to the second respondent and the decision of the second respondent not to take