IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 23 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THULASIDHARAN, SON OF BHARGAVAN ACHARI, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 11/1900 , GEETHU BHAVAN, YMR JUNCTION, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSUEM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.23/2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT.2.8.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION RELIED ON BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.5.12.2009. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(Crl).No.23 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner states that he is the father of the detenue Sanish who was detained in terms of Ext.P1 detention order under the provisions of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter, the 'Act', for short. The detention order was issued on 2.8.2009 by the competent authority but was enforced by securing detention only on 23.11.2009. The petitioner has two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that there is inordinate unexplained delay between the detention order and the enforcement of the detention and that with such passage of time, it needs to be held that the detention order has turned out to be one which could not be enforced without a further due formulation of mind regarding WPCR.23/10 2 the requirement for detention. Secondly, it is argued that the ground of detention in terms of the recommendations of the reporting authority is 'Known Rowdy' whereas the impugned detention order has been issued by holding that the said person is a 'Known Goonda'. 2.Dilating on the relevant provisions of the Act, this Court has held in W.P(Crl).No.456/09 and connected cases that the conclusions arrived at with a person is a 'Goonda' and therefore a 'Known Goonda' on similar facts, is insufficient to sustain an order of detention. With this, we find that the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 3.In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P1 order and setting aside the detention of the detenue Sanish. If the detention of the detenue is not necessary in connection with any other case, he shall forthwith be released by the WPCR.23/10 3 prison authorities. The Registry shall forthwith communicate this order to the prison authorities concerned. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.24/02.