IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28679 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUDEESH @ SUDHI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, KARIYATH HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM KARA, VAZHAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, KOCHI. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THADIYITTAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. RAVEENDRA BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28679/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DTD. 10/08/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INDEX GIVEN BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: REPORT OF S.P. EKM RURAL (THE FIRST ITEM IN THE INDEX). EXT.P.5: REPORT OF CI, KUNNATHUNADU (THE 2ND ITEM IN THE INDEX). EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 104/2006 (THE 3RD ITEM THE INDEX). EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 44/2008 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBU POLICE STATION (THE 4TH ITEM IN THE INDEX). EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.37/2009 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBU POLICE STATION IS (THE 5TH ITEM IN THE INDEX). EXT.P.9: THE C.D. STATEMENT OF MUHAMMED SADIQ. EXT.P.10: THE C.D. STATEMENT OF THE SHAMEER. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/10/2009. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE FIR IN NO.105/2006 OF THADIYITTA PARAMBU POLICE STATION. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN NO. 105/2006 OF THADIYITTA PARAMBU POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28679 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to assail Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 15 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the KAAPA'). It is prayed that the said order of restraint passed by the 2nd respondent may be set aside. 2. The learned Government Pleader raises the objection that this Writ Petition is not now maintainable as the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA to challenge the order. The learned Government Pleader reliance on the decision in Shibu v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 872). This Writ Petition is premature and the challenge may not be entertained without and before the petitioner exhausts the remedy of challenge under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. We find merit in the submission. We have already referred to this aspect in the decision referred above. We find no exceptional reason which can persuade us to entertain the challenge raised in this petition against Exhibit P11 order when the petitioner has not availed W.P.(C)No.28679/09 -2- of the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA. At any rate, the right of the petitioner to challenge such order to be passed by the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) may not be fettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. We find merit in the objections raised by the learned Government Pleader on the sole ground that the petitioner who has an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA to challenge the order has chosen to come to this Court without and before exhausting such remedy available to him. We dismiss this Writ petition, but make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Advisory Board or to challenge the order of the Advisory Board later, if such challenge is found to be necessary. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn