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 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 27207 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, PERISSERY HOUSE, PUTHOORMADAM, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.M.T.SHEEBA, MR.P.A.RAJESH, MR.K.RAKESH, SMT.VRINDA PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.R. RAVINDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27207/2009 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.A3/21289/09 KR DTD. 8/09/2009. P2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.94/2008 OF THE MAVOOR POLICE STATION DTD. 29/04/2008. P3: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.148/2008 OF THE MAVOOR POLICE STATION DTD. 2/07/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C)No.27207 of 2009-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 which is only a notice calling upon him to show cause against the issuance of an order under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The statutory provision does not require such a notice to be issued after formulating a definite opinion as to the liability of the person to whom the notice is issued, to be detained. The question as to whether a restriction order has to be made at all is yet to be considered. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to issue any order quashing the impugned show cause notice. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioner ultimately WPC27207/09 -: 2 :- confines his submissions to a request that his client needs two weeks' time to show cause in terms of the impugned notice. We are inclined to grant that on condition that the petitioner shall immediately appear before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mavoor Police Station and will mark his attendance before that officer at 8 a.m. on every Thursdays. If he does so, he will be eligible to file his reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice within two weeks from now and such material will also be considered by the competent authority. The petitioner shall continue to mark his attendance as aforesaid for a further period of one month or till a decision is taken following Ext.P1, whichever is earlier. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/0403