Point of Law: Even if Court concedes that necessary action for contemplating for preventive detention have been taken by sponsoring agency.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in regard to the challenge against the order preventing and detaining the detenu in this case under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, are as follows:

“(i) A writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue forthwith in the interest of justice.

(ii) Writ of certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to Exhibit P-1 detention order and quash Exhibit P1 detention order as it ultravires constitution and is against law.

(iii) Any other writ or order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit according to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri. Liffy P. Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. In the instant case, brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:

The petitioner is the brother of the detenu involved in this case (Sri. Sinar, aged 26 years, S/o Sulaiman) who has been detained in terms of Ext.P-1 detention order dated 15.8.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent District Magistrate/District Collector, Ernakulam (authorized detaining authority) under Section 3(1) of the above Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P-1 detention order has been forthwith communicated by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent State Government along with all relevant records. Thereafter, Ext.P-1 detention order has been executed with the arrest and actual detention of the detenu on 17.8.2022 and thereafter, he has been detained in the Central Prison, Kannur since then, in connection with this case. Ext.P-1 detention order has been subsequently approved by the 1st respondent State Government as per order dated 27.8.2022. The 1st respondent State Government had, later, referred the matter for the opinion of the 4th respondent statutory Advisory Board on 31.8.2022. The 4th respondent statutory Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has given their report to the State Government, on 14.10.2022, recommending that there are sufficient grounds for preventive detention of the detenu in terms of Ext.P-1 order. Later, the 1st respondent State Government has issued G.O. (Rt.) No. 2965/2022/HOME dated 26.10.2022 confirming Ext.P-1 detention order. Altogether 4 criminal cases have been taken into account for determining the issue as to whether the detenu would satisfy the requirements of “Known Rowdy” as per Section 2(p)(iii) read with Section 2(t) of the above Act. Going by the details of the said 4 crimes given in Ext.P-1 detention order, there are no serious disputes that the detenu would broadly satisfy the definitional parameters of “Known Rowdy” as per Section 2(p)(iii) read with Section 2(t) of the above Act.

4. The main ground urged before us by the counsel for the petitioner is that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in passing Ext.P-1 detention order as late as on 15.8.2022 even though the last prejudicial activity, in relation to the last case involved in this case, is said to have been registered on 21.2.2022 and hence, it is urged that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has snapped and hence, it is urged that the decision making process which led to Ext.P-1 detention order is vitiated and is liable for interdiction.

5. Both sides have made their submissions on this point and there is no necessity to reiterate their respective submissions, as we propose to deal with this contention with all specific details.

6. In the instant case, it is admitted case of the respondents that the last prejudicial activity was allegedly conducted by the detenu on 21.2.2022 and the crime in that regard was registered by the Police on 22.2.2022 (which is the date of registration of the fourth and the last crime in this case). It is also common ground that the detenu was arrested