Point of Law: If there is inordinate and unexplained delay in passing detention order, then same is liable for interdiction in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The afore captioned Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed challenging the order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act ordering that the detenue involved in this case be detained under Section 3(1) of the said Act so as to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-Social activities.

2. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenue involved in this case.

3. Heard Sri. K.S Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case is as follows:

4. The 2nd respondent District Police Chief, Kollam in his capacity as sponsoring authority has submitted the first report on 14.04.2022, followed by an additional report on 16.07.2022, recommending to the 1st respondent District Collector cum District Magistrate, Kollam that in view of the factual aspects stated therein, the 1st respondent may invoke his powers under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A Act so as to detain the detenue, in order to prevent him from committing further prejudicial activities. The 2nd respondent Sponsoring authority has placed reliance on 7 crimes committed by the detenue for making the above recommendation. After consideration of the same, the 1st respondent – District Magistrate, who is the authorized detaining authority, has reckoned only 6 out of the said 7 crimes and has issued the impugned Ext.P1 detention order dated 20.08.2022, ordering the preventive detention of the detenue under Section 3(1) of the Act. The details of the 6 crimes reckoned against the detenue for the above purpose have been mentioned in Ext.P1 detention order and has also been re-iterated in paragraph 6, on pages 5 to 9 of the counter affidavit dated 28.10.2022, filed by the 3rd respondent State Government. There is no serious dispute that the detenue would satisfy the definitional parameters of “known rowdy”, as per Section 2(p)(iii) read with section 2(t) of the above Act. So also, there is no serious dispute that the respondent has broadly followed the various statutory timelines mentioned in the above Act in the rendering of the impugned Ext.P1 detention order.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has raised essentially two grounds in support of his plea for quashment of the impugned detention order. The first ground is that, going by the nature of the allegations raised in the above 6 cases, more particularly in the last and the 6th crime, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the 1st respondent, for invoking the discretionary powers under Section 3(1) of the Act, is without any substantial basis and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the 1st respondent is liable to be interfered with.

6. The 2nd ground is that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the 1st respondent in passing the detention order only as late as on 20.08.2022, even-though the last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenue, is said to have been committed as early as on 28.03.2022. That, in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in that regard, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention, covered by Ext.P1, has been vitally snapped and hence, on this sole ground, the impugned proceedings, at Ext.P1, is liable to be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

7. The learned Prosecutor has strongly opposed both the abovesaid pleas of the petitioner. We will deal with each of the contentions separately as given below.

Contention A: No proper subjective satisfaction under Section 3(1).

8. In this case, it is common ground that in the first 3 crimes reckoned against the detenu, he could secure anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court concerned. None of these cases have disclosed any serious offences as per Sections 307, 308 etc. That, in the next two crimes, he was granted