The revocation of a detention order does not diminish the efficacy of the alleged acts counted for the detention order, and revocation under different sections of the Act does not create a qualitative distinction.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The issues for consideration in these references to the Full Bench relate to some of the provisions regarding preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, for short, the “Act”. The second among the captioned matters is referred and tagged along, in view of the order of reference in the former.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the matters, including the State Government’s counsel.

3. The reasoned order of reference is made doubting the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Praseetha v. State of Kerala [ILR 2009(4) Ker.896]. The short issue for consideration is as to whether the alleged occurrences taken into consideration while passing an order of detention, which was revoked by the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act on the advice of the Advisory Board, could be counted along with the later prejudicial acts, for issuance of another detention order under Section 3 of the Act in terms of Section 13(2) thereof.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(Crl.)No.248 of 2014 argued that Praseetha was decided correctly and hence it does not call for variation on reconsideration. Per contra, the learned State Government’s counsel supported the views expressed in the order of reference and argued that the ratio of Praseetha is wrong to the extent it holds that the occurrences which were counted for the purpose of the earlier detention order, which was revoked on the advice of the Board cannot thereafter be counted along with other prejudicial acts which are alleged to have been committed after the revocation. He, therefore, pleaded that the ratio in Praseetha is to be overruled.

5. Sub-section 4 of Section 10 of the Act enjoins that in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of a person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.

6. Sub-section 1 of Section 13 of the Act provides for revocation or modification of detention order by the State Government. Section 13(2) provides, among other things, that the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3 of the Act, if the person concerned continues to be a person falling within the definition of ‘known rowdy’ or ‘known goonda’ as defined in the Act, and if any of the situations enumerated in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of that sub-section occurs.

7. To resolve the controversies raised in these matters, particularly as to the effect of the Board's recommendations, in the first instance, it is profitable to examine the jurisdiction of the Board constituted in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act provides that in every case where a detention order has been made under the Act, the Government shall place the matter for consideration of the Board in accordance with the prescriptions of that provision. Section 10 lays down the procedure of the Board and further action. Sub-section 4 of that section provides, among other things, that where the Board has reported that, in its opinion, there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and shall cause the person to be released forthwith. The domain of consideration by the Board in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act is such that, the only question for decision and advice by it is as regards the particular detention order which went to it for opinion. The Board's authority was to opine whether the order of detention before it then, was fou