1. Aggrieved by the order of restriction of movements passed by the second respondent against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act (for short 'KAAPA'), the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. His grievance is that he was served with Ext.P1 show cause notice on 14.11.2016 by the second respondent calling upon him to show cause why an order under Section 15(1)(a) of KAPPA shall not be issued against him based on his antecedents in the light of the surrounding circumstances. In Ext.P1 it is stated that his involvement in Crime No.719/2011 of Angamaly Police Station, Crime No. 149/2004 of Kalady Police Station, Crime No. 327/2016 and 829/2016 of Chengamanad Police Station, are accounted to bring him under the sweep as 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p) of KAAPA. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, he submitted Ext.P2 a detailed explanation, but it was rejected and Ext.P3 order was passed on 25.02.2016 and it was served on him on 28.02.2017 restricting his entry in Ernakulam Rural District for one year from the date of receipt of the order. The details of the cases mentioned in the show-cause notice are as follows:

Sl. No Crime No. and Police Station Offences u/s Date of occurrence/FIR/Charge Present Stage

1 719/2011 of Angamaly P.S. 324, 326, 427, 120(B), 34 11.05.2011 Charge 30.3.2012 Pending as C.C.No.580/2015 in the trial court.

2 149/2017 of Kalady P.S. 143, 147, 148, 307, 452, 427, 506(ii), 120B, 109, 212, 149 IPC r/w 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act & 7 r/w. 27(2) of Arms Act. 27.01.2014 FIR 28.1.2014 Charge 31.07.2014 Pending as CP22/15 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalady.

3 327/2016 Chengamanad P.S. 363,395 IPC 22.3.2016 Pending investigation.

4 829/2016 Chengamanad P.S. 195(A), 506 IPC 26.07.2016 Pending investigation.

3. Though he submitted a representation before the Advisory Board, the same was also rejected by Ext.P5 order and hence he filed this petition with the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P5 orders and further may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 and P5 orders.

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be restrained under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The respondents have stoutly defended the impugned action and controverted the grounds projected and contended that the petitioner is a person involved in four crimes of serious nature and his illegal and anti-social activities are adversely affecting the peaceful atmosphere of the locality and he has been identified as a 'known rowdy'. From 2003 onwards, in total he had involved in 15 cases of different police stations, but somehow he was acquitted in 11 cases. He is repeatedly indulging in such activities and in fact, his presence and illegal activities in the district are causing immense threat to the public and hence, on thorough examination of all the materials produced, to prevent his continuous anti-social activities without any regard to rule of law, the restriction order was passed, contends the respondents. It is further contended that in the earlier detention order passed against him dated 27.07.2011, Crime No.719/2011 was considered. But the order was quashed because of the ground of delay in executing the detention order and hence, the contention that the said crime cannot be taken into consideration for passing restriction order is not sustainable. The order under challenge is perfectly justifiable and it was passed safeguarding the rights of the petitioner and hence the Advisory Committee had confirmed the order of the second respondent is the stand taken by the respondents to sustain the order.

5. Challenge is with respect to Ext P3 order passed under Section 15 of KAAPA. Section 15