K.T. Sankaran, J.

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following :

"(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith consider and pass orders on Exhibits P12 and P13 representations submitted by the petitioner, invoke the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and order for preventive detention/restriction of the 7th respondent in terms with Sections 3 or 15 thereunder ;

(ii). Allow cost of this petition to the petitioner ; and

(iii). Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Baby v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 854).

3. The petitioner avers in the Writ Petition that the seventh respondent satisfies all the requirements to classify him as a "known rowdy" within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'). It is stated that six crimes have been registered against the seventh respondent out of which four crimes have been registered at the instance of the petitioner. It is alleged that the seventh respondent is a threat to the society and he consistently indulges in anti-social activities making the life of the petitioner as well as others miserable. In Baby v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 854), the Division Bench held thus :

"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."

4. The KAAPA provides for preventive detention as per an order under Section 3 and an order of restraint under Section 15(1). Section 3(1) provides that the Government or an officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any known goonda or known rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA, the authority to issue the restraint order is either the District Magistrate or a Police Officer of and above the rank of Deputy Inspector General having jurisdiction. The authority concerned could act under Section 15(1) on the basis of the satisfaction arrived at on information received in respect of a known goonda or known rowdy that he is indulging in or about to indulge in or likely to indulge in anti-social activities and with a view to prevent him from so acting, an order under Section 15(1) is required.

5. The words "on information received" occurring in Section 15 does not relate to an information which an individual can supply to the authority under the KAAPA for the purpose of initiating action nor does those words cast a duty on the authority concerned to hear such person who seeks to issue an order of restraint.

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