IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33531 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUDHEER @ ABBAS S/O. RAGHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM VAZHAVACHA POIKAYIL VEEDU, MEENADU CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 691 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 001. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, K.A.A.P.A., SRINIVAS, VIVAKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA.P.O., KOCHI-682026. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P. RAVINDRA BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.33531 OF 2010 N PETEITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.03.2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.03.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.04.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.6/2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR WHICH IS NOT READABLE IN CRIME NO.6/2009. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.6/2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.747/2009. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR WHICH IS NOT READABLE IN CRIME NO.747/2009. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.747/2009. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESTRICTION ORDER DATED 21/08/2010. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 07/10/2010. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 20/10/2010. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 20/10/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //True Copy// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 33531 OF 2010 N ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd March, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has been visited with Ext.P10 order issued under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), restraining the petitioner from entering the limits of the Kollam District. Petitioner filed representation under Section 15 of the Act before the Advisory Board. It was found to be not maintainable on the ground of delay and Ext.P11 order was passed. We heard Shri C. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Shri P. Ravindra Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would address before us the following arguments: The Authority has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner WP(C).NO.33531/2010 N 2 is a known goonda. For doing so, the Authority has relied on the following three cases: 1) Crime No.95/98 2) Crime No.6/09 & 3) Crime No.741/09. Crime Nos.6/09 and 741/09 were registered under the Kerala Protection of River Banks And Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Sand Act, for short). As far as Crime No.95/98 is concerned, it related to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 149 IPC. He would rely on the Judgments of this Court in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) and Santhamma v. District Magistrate (2010 (1) KLT 172) for the proposition that in respect of a case coming under Section 2(o) of the Act, there must be no witness who is a policeman. As far as Crime No.6/09 which would otherwise fall under Section 2(o), all the witnesses were police witnesses. As far as Crime No.741/09 also registered under the Sand Act and which WP(C).NO.33531/2010 N 3 would otherwise qualify for treating the petitioner as a known goonda, of the three witnesses, one of the witnesses alone was an independent witness and the other two witnesses were police witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brings to our notice that Ext.P3 purporting to be the show cause notice also visited the petitioner with an interim order of restriction. He points out that Ext.P3 was received on 30.4.2010. He further points out that he was again visited with the final order which is an order passed after receipt of his explanation and that order is dated 21.8.2010 and therein also, he is visited with an order restraining him for a period of one year. This is impermissible, he points out, as under Section 15 of the Act, there is no power to pass an interim order and the maximum period fixed is one year which can be imposed only after giving an opportunity of hearing. In this case, even pursuant to Ext.P3 show cause notice -cum-interim order, he has been visited with the order restraining him from 30.4.2010. In other words, he has been restrained for a period of more than ten WP(C).NO.33531/2010 N 4 months already. The procedure adopted is quite illegal, he points out. 3. After having considered the matter, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be sub-served if we restricted the period of restriction as imposed in Ext.P10 to the period already undergone, taking into consideration the period of restriction imposed, both in Exts.P3 and P10 also. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// WP(C).NO.33531/2010 N 5