K.T. SANKARAN, J.

1. The petitioner is a practicing lawyer who claims to be actively involved in the protection of destitute women and rehabilitation of women and child victims. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is a habitual offender and hardened criminal. The petitioner says that the fourth respondent is involved in six criminal cases including cases under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is alleged that the fourth respondent is involved in supplying minor girls for sexual harassment. The petitioner says that the fourth respondent is a threat to the society for the past seven years.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the District Police Chief, Kozhikode, submitted a report under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') for passing an order of detention against the fourth respondent classifying him as a known goonda, the District Magistrate failed to take any proper action under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 report submitted by the District Police Chief in accordance with law.

3. In Baby v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 854), a Division Bench of this Court held thus:-

“3. In the constitutional alchemy, respecting the salutary human right doctrines resonating in the international domain, and standing advised by the pearls of wisdom as to the most precious constitutional right to liberty under the Constitution of India, we are unable to visualise any ground of statutory or public duty, in any executive authority to invoke the provisions of KAAPA at the instance of a private party. There is no statutory or constitutional right for any person; to assert as a citizen of India, to compel issuance of a preventive detention proceedings or restraint proceedings under any preventive detention laws.”

We are in agreement with the principles of law laid down in Baby v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 854). In W.P. (C) No.1231 of 2016, we also had occasion to consider this question and it was held thus:-

“6. Detention or restraint under the Preventive Detention laws are exceptional in nature. Action under the Preventive Detention laws is required to deter the person concerned from indulging in anti-social activity, disturbing public order etc. Effective safeguards are provided in all Preventive Detention laws to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the detenu. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides for the constitutional safeguards to be taken in the matter of preventive detention. A citizen has got the fundamental rights as enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India. He has got remedies also either under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution if his fundamental rights are infringed. Enforcement of fundamental right of a citizen would not extent to a right to require the authorities under the Preventive Detention laws to exercise their subjective satisfaction and to make an order to detain a person under such laws. In other words, the Preventive Detention laws contain provisions with respect to powers and duties to be exercised by the authorities under such laws in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction before issuing an order of detention, execution of the order, confirmation of the detention order etc. The detenu concerned, who has been detained under such Preventive Detention laws, is entitled to make representations and that right stems from Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Nowhere in the KAAPA, a citizen at whose instance criminal cases have been initiated against the person sought to be detained, is conferred with a right to approach the authorities to exercise their subjective satisfaction and to initiate proceedings