K.T. Sankaran, J.

The questions of law involved in this Writ Petition are the following:

A) Whether the Advisory Board exercising powers under Section 15(2) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “KAAPA”) has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the representation under subsection (2) of Section 15?

B) Whether the person against whom an order is passed under Section 15(1) of KAAPA can challenge that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the period fixed for filing a representation before the Advisory Board?

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why he should not be restrained from entering into the jurisdiction of the District Police Chief of Kannur, for a period of one year under Section 15(1) of KAAPA. In Ext.P1, the allegation is that the petitioner is involved in six cases, where charge sheets were filed before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class concerned. It is also stated in Ext.P1 that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was, prima facie, satisfied that the petitioner is a “known rowdy” as defined in Section 2(p) of KAAPA and that he is indulging in antisocial activities within the jurisdiction of the District Police Chief, Kannur.

3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice. The Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range passed Ext.P3 order dated 14.8.2012 under Section 15(1) of KAAPA, restraining the petitioner from entering into Kannur District for a period of one year, except with the prior permission of the District Police Chief, Kannur for the purposes specified in the order. It is stated in Ext.P3 that the decision taken earlier to issue an order under Section 15(1) was confirmed.

4. The petitioner filed a representation to the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of KAAPA. The representation was not submitted within fifteen days as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 15. There was a delay of three days in filing the representation. Going by the date of service of the order, the petitioner should have submitted the representation to the Advisory Board on or before 23.9.2012. However, the representation was sent by registered post on 24.9.2012 and it was received by the Advisory Board on 26.9.2012.

5. The Advisory Board held in Ext.P6 order that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in making the representation and therefore, the representation was not considered.

6. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P6 order passed by the Advisory Board as well as Ext.P3 order passed by the Inspector General of Police.

7. Sri. P.V. Surendranath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Advisory Board has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the representation. It is submitted that though the Advisory Board is not a court stricto senso, the rights of parties being the subject matter of adjudication by the Advisory Board, it should have inherent power to condone the delay. It is also submitted that the Advisory Board is constituted not only to exercise the statutory jurisdiction conferred on it but also to protect the constitutional rights of the person aggrieved, under Articles 14, 19 and 21. KAAPA curtails the liberty of citizens and, therefore, it must ensure fairness in procedure. Fairness is guaranteed by providing a right to make a representation. The Advisory Board must have jurisdiction to condone delay if the right to make the representation is to be meaningful. The learned counsel also submitted that Ext.P3 order is even otherwise illegal and liable to be quashed since the authority which passed Ext.P3 order did not record his subjective satisfaction as to whether the petitioner is a “known goonda” or “known rowdy”.

8. Sri. T.Asaf Ali, the learned Director General of Prosecution, submitted that it is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable o