P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

We are called upon to decide (by Reference Order dated 01.12.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court) whether the dictum laid down in Safiya v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 7) requires to be reconsidered. The more pointed question raised is whether the detaining authority is to record the subjective satisfaction under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(KAAPA) (hereinafter called the 'Act' in short) solely on the basis of the finding on investigation recorded by the competent authority in Police?. In other words, whether the observations made by the Division Bench in Safiya's case are to be read and understood as to a situation where final report is submitted by the police under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., is it no more open for the detaining authority to consider anything more while passing an order under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA; or is it not necessary for the detaining authority to pass an order with proper application of mind as to whether any circumstance is brought out to pass such an order, necessitating to keep the detenue under preventive detention?.

2. Heard Mr. Vipin Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Shri K.A. Anas, the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State/Respondents.

3. A brief discussion on the facts is necessary to appreciate the chain of circumstances and the legal position more effectively. The brother of the petitioner, who is the detenue, was classified by the police as a 'known goonda' in terms of Section 2(o) of the Act as various cases came to be registered against him, as envisaged under the Act [here, it was under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001]. Pursuant to the relevant proceedings and report submitted by the third respondent/S.I. of Police before the 4th respondent/Superintendent of Police, a report in terms of Section 3 of the Act came to be filed before the second respondent. After considering the same, the second respondent passed Ext.P1 order of detention on 16.09.2010; pursuant to which, the detenue was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 24.09.2010. The order of detention was approved by the Govt. of Kerala under Section 3(3) of the Act on 08.10.2010. The said order was sought to be intercepted contending mainly:

i. that the sponsoring authority had unnecessarily referred to irrelevant and extraneous matters in Ext.P4 Sponsoring Report, particularly by referring to five earlier cases registered against the detenue (in fact, not referred to by the detaining authority in Ext.P1 order) which had polluted the mind of the second respondent/detaining authority;

ii. that the detenue was not liable to be branded as a 'depradator of environment' in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act, as no derival of any pecuniary or commercial benefit while committing the alleged offence was made out, and hence he cannot be treated as a 'known goonda' under Section 2(o) of the Act, by virtue of which no detention order could have been passed as well.

iii. that the detenue was not furnished with the copy of the relevant documents/materials forming the basis of the charge sheet/final report; and

iv. that the proceedings were vitiated in all respects, being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the Act.

4. On a threadbare analysis of the facts and figures, a Division Bench of this Court, as per the Reference Order dated 01.12.2010, held that the detaining authority's decision cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the sponsoring authority's report contains irrelevant or extraneous information, which the detaining authority has rightly chosen not to be relied on. It was observed by the Bench that the sponsoring authority may furnish various pieces of information. But it does not mean that the detaining authority has to consider all such piece of information to entertain either of the 'two' satisfactio