Point of Law : Order should be passed under Section 3(1) to preventively detain detenu as he is likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayers in the instant writ petition seeking for writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari in regard to the challenge against the preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act 2007 KAA(P) Act, 2007 are as follows:

(i) call for the records leading to Exts.P1 quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the b0dy of the detenu viz. Adarsh Chandrasekharan, S/o.Chandrasekharan Nair, Aged 25 years, Madappilly House, Amballoor Kara, Amballoor Village, Ernakulam, the husband of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

(iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).

(iv) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

2. Heard Sri.Ajesh M. Ummer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The factual aspects necessary for the disposal of this Writ proceedings are as follows: The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu involved in this case viz, Sri.Adarsh Chandrasekhar, aged 25 years, S/o.Chandrasekharan Nair. The 4th respondent District Police Chief concerned (who is the sponsoring authority) has given report dated 17.03.2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent authorized detaining authority that in view of the factual aspects stated in the said report, it is a fit case to enable the 2nd respondent to pass orders under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act to ensure the preventive detention of the detenu as he is otherwise likely to indulge in further prejudicial anti-social activities as understood in Section 2(a) of the abovesaid Act. In the light of the said report, the 2nd respondent District Collector cum District Magistrate, Ernakulam has passed Ext.P1 order dated 29.05.2022 stating that in view of the factual aspects stated therein, the 2nd respondent is satisfied that order should be passed under Section 3(1) to preventively detain the detenu as he is likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities. Further, Ext.P1 detention order, along with all the relevant records/documents were forthwith communicated to the Government as required in Section 3(3) of the Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P1 detention order dated 29.05.2022 was executed on 08.06.2022. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had given the necessary proposal to the Government seeking for their approval. The first respondent State Government has issued Government order dated 17.06.2022 approving Ext.P1 detention order, which is within 12 days after excluding public holidays as envisaged in Section 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has referred the matter for the opinion of the 5th respondent Statutory Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after hearing the detenu has given their report on 05.08.2022, recommending to the Government that there is sufficient cause for preventive detention of the detenu as per Ext.P1 order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has passed Ext.P2 GO(Rt) No.2222/2022/Home dated 10.08.2022, confirming Ext.P1 detention order in terms of Section 10(4) of the Act. There is no serious dispute that the various statutory timelines, mandated in the Act like the 5 days limit for communicating the grounds of detention of the detenu under Section 7(2) for approval of the State Government within 12 days after excluding holidays as per Section 3(3), the time limit of 3 weeks from the date of detention for placing the matter before the Advisory Board, the 9 weeks time limit for the Advisory Board to give the report as per Se