IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that excessive delays in preventive detention orders and in the consideration of representations violate constitutional rights, necessitating strict compliance with procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

(Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.) :

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and mounts a challenge against Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent. The prayers sought are as follows:

i. Call for the records leading to Exts.P1 and 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 body of the detenu, Sri. Abdul Latheef, aged 32 years, S/o. Muhammed, Puliyanmadathil House, Vattalloor P.O., Kuruva, Malappuram District, PIN - 676 507, the husband of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Viyyur before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. The petitioner herein is the wife of Sri. Abdul Latheef. Sri Latheef has been ordered to be preventively detained, in terms of Ext.P1 detention order dated 16.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’).

3. The brief facts leading to this case are as follows:

a) The District Police Chief, Malappuram has furnished a report dated 18.03.2024 before the 2nd respondent recommending the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act against the detenu to interdict him from continuing to indulge in anti-social activities. Based on his criminal antecedents it was urged that the detenu is a fit person to be classified as a ‘known rowdy’ under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. The details of the involvement of the detenu in about 23 crimes committed from the year 2018 till 2023 were furnished before the detaining authority and it was also requested that Crime No. 117 of 2018 of the Kondotty Police Station be excluded from the list. It was mentioned that proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C had been initiated against the detenu by registering M.C.No. 473 of 2023 on the file of the SDM, Perinthalmanna, and a rowdy history sheet had been opened at the Kolathur Police Station. Despite initiating all measures, the detenu got himself involved in Crime No. 1234 of 2023 of the Kottakkal Police Station.

b) Based on the above report, the authorized detaining authority issued Ext.P1 detention order dated 22.04.2024, wherein, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction based on the materials, came to the conclusion that the detenu falls under the category of a ‘known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAP Act and that he is to be preventively detained with a view to preventing him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities. The order was executed on 01.05.2024 and the same was approved by order dated 15.05.2024. The matter was referred to the opinion of the Advisory Board, and the Board by report dated 14.06.2024, after hearing the detenu, took the view that there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention of the detenu. Based on the opinion so obtained, the detention order was confirmed by 1st respondent by order dated 11.07.2024. In the meantime, separate representations were submitted before the Advisory Board and the Government by the detenu on 07.05.2024. The representations were forwarded to the Government, which at the time of confirming the detention order, considered and rejected the same as is evident from the records produced by the learned Public Prosecutor along with a memo.

4. Sri M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

a) The last prejudicial activity referred to in the order of detention is Crime No. 1234 of 2023 of the Kottakkal Police Station. The occurrence of offence was on 16.10.2023. The detenu was arrested in the said case on 23.10.2023 and bail was granted to him by imposing stringent conditions on 20.12.2023. The final report was laid in the said case on 23.12.2023. However, the sponsorship report was submitted by the 3rd respondent only on 18.03.2024 and the detention order was passed only on 16.04.2024. T