A private citizen lacks the right to compel preventive detention under the Anti Social Activities Act; judicial intervention is limited to instances of bias or misinterpretation by authorities.

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner seeks for a direction to the 3rd respondent –

District Police Chief, Ernakulam, to consider and take a decision on Ext.P2 representation submitted by him.

2. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 09.01.2022 alleging that one Sri.Tommy Thannittamakkal has indulged in several criminal activities and is a known goonda and rowdy as defined under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') and therefore appropriate action as authorised by law ought to be initiated against the said person.

3. A statement has been filed by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, alleging that there are 8 cases registered against Tommy Thannittamakkal, who is presently the Vice President of Manjalloor Grama Panchayath and a congress party worker. The details of the criminal cases have also been specifically mentioned. However, the statement refers to two decisions of this Court indicating that a private party has no statutory or constitutional right to compel the issuance of preventive detention proceedings against another person.

4. I have heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite a representation pointing out several cases committed by one Sri.Tommy Thannittamakkal, the 3rd respondent has not initiated proceedings under the Act nor have issued orders of preventive detention against the said person. The learned Government Pleader after referring to the statement filed pointed out that of the eight cases registered against the said Sri.Tommy Thannittamakkal, he was acquitted in one case while in another case the complaint was referred as false. It was further pointed out that of the remaining six cases against the said persons, three relates to processions taken out by political parties, of which the said Sri.Tommy was a part, while three other cases relate to disputes about a pathway between the writ petitioner and the said Sri.Tommy. It was further submitted that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have already been initiated against Sri.Tom T.Lukas @

Tommy Tannittamakil.

6. In the decision in Balachandran P. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 2 KLT 768 ], a Division Bench of this Court had observed that detention or restraint order under the Prevention Detention Laws are exceptional in nature and a private citizen does not possess a right to require the authorities under the Preventive Detention Laws to exercise a subjective satisfaction and to make an order to detain a person under such laws. It was specifically observed that nowhere in the Act a citizen, at whose instance criminal cases have been initiated against the person sought to be detained, is conferred with a right to approach the authorities to exercise their subjective satisfaction and to initiate proceedings. The judgment further observed that the Act also does not provide a corresponding duty on the authorities concerned to hear the person at whose instance the crimes have been registered in the matter of exercising the statutory rights and performing the statutory duties.

7. However, the very same Bench which decided Balachandran's case (supra) observed later, inSapna P.P. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 2 KLT 783 ] that, if the authority failed to initiate proceedings under the Act, either on account of bias or on account of misinterpretation or wrong understanding of the settled principles of law, then the High Court would be justified in issuing appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. On a consideration of the above two decisions, it is evident that the scope of this Court to issue directions to initiate proceedings under the Act and to direct issuance of orders of preventive detention arises only when the authorities had acted with bias or in ignorance of settled principles of law. A situation as co