Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 detention order dated 03.04.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, Kollam under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, for brevity, 'the KAAPA', and Ext.P5 order dated 05.07.2023 of the 1st respondent State, whereby Ext.P1 detention order stands confirmed. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the detenu 'Shanu' before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. The petitioner is the cousin brother of the detenu 'Shanu'. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the arrest and detention of the detenu is in violation of all the provisions and procedures established by law, his fundamental rights guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the KAAPA and the direction issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416] [LQ/SC/1996/2231] . It is also alleged that while issuing Ext.P1 detention order, the cases which were already considered for issuing the previous detention order were again considered.

3. The 4th respondent Station House Officer, Pallithottam Police Station submitted Ext.P3 report dated 20.01.2023 before the 3rd respondent City Police Commissioner (Superintendent of Police), Kollam, the Sponsoring Authority, pointing out the need for detaining the detenu under the provisions of KAAPA, based on which the Sponsoring Authority submitted Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023 before the 2nd respondent District Magistrate. As required by the 2nd respondent, the Sponsoring Authority submitted the additional documents along with Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2023. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there is no live link from the last prejudicial activity to the date of the detention order, since there occurred an inordinate delay of three months and eight days. Initially, the detenu was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA for a period of 6 months from 13.06.2022. After release, the detenu was implicated in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station as the 3rd accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the accused in the said crime, including the detenu, got bail by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam in C.M.P.No.96 of 2023, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. A copy of the bail order dated 30.01.2023 was submitted before the District Magistrate, as an additional document, along with Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2023 of the Sponsoring Authority. Based on Ext.P1 detention order dated 03.04.2023, the detenu was again arrested on 04.04.2023. The 1st respondent State, by Ext.P5 order dated 05.07.2023, confirmed Ext.P1 detention order, after considering the report of the Advisory Board under the KAAPA and the representation submitted by the detenu.

4. On 01.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

5. The 2nd respondent District Magistrate has filed a counter affidavit dated 13.10.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The issue that requires consideration in the writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 detention order issued by the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, which stands confirmed by Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent State.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the arrest and detention of the detenu vide Ext.P1 detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA is in violation of the provisions contained in the said Act and his fundamental rights guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution of India. There is no live link from the last prejudicial activity to the date of Ext.P1 detention order, since there occurred an inordinate delay of three months and eight days. In the subsequent crime, i.e., Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, the detenu, who is the 3rd accused, got bail by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam. While issuing Ext.P1 detention order, the cases which were already considered for issuing the previous detention order, whereby the detenu was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA for a period of 6 months from 13.06.2022, were again considered.

9. Per contra, the learned Government pleader contended that Ext.P1 detention order of the 2nd respondent District Magistrate is one issued strictly in terms of the provisions under the KAAPA and also the Constitutional provisions, which warrants no interference in this writ petition. After considering the report of the Advisory Board under the KAAPA and the representation submitted by the detenu, the 1st respondent State passed Ext.P5 order, whereby Ext.P1 detention order stands confirmed.

10. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the report dated 20.01.2023 of the 4th respondent Station House Officer, Pallithottam Police Station, which was one submitted before the 3rd respondent City Police Commissioner (Superintendent of Police), the Sponsoring Authority, under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2)(i) of the KAAPA, when the detenu who was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA for a period of 6 months from 13.06.2022, who was released on12.12.2022, was arrested on 26.12.2022 and detained in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Based on that report, the Sponsoring Authority submitted Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023 before the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2)(i) of the KAAPA. By the letter dated 23.02.2023, the District Magistrate sought for further details, which were furnished by the Sponsoring Authority along with Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2023. After the submission of Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023, the detenu, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, got bail by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam in C.M.P.No.96 of 2023, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. A copy of the bail order was also submitted before the District Magistrate as an additional document, along with Ext.P4 report.

11. The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 was enacted by the State Legislature to provide for the effective prevention and control of certain kind of anti-social activities in the State of Kerala, which came into force on 13.12.2006. Clause (j) of Section 2 of thedefines 'goonda' to mean a person who indulges in any anti-social activity or promotes or abets any illegal activity which are harmful for the maintenance of the public order directly or indirectly and includes a bootlegger, a counterfeiter, a depredator of environment, a digital data and copy right pirate, a drug offender, a hawala racketeer, a hired ruffian, rowdy, an immoral traffic offender, a loan shark or a property grabber.

12. Clause (o) of Section 2 of thedefines 'known goonda' to mean a goonda who had been, for acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act, - (i) found guilty, by a competent court or authority at least once for an offence within the meaning of the term 'goonda' as defined in clause (j) of Section 2; or (ii) found in any investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer, or other authority or competent court on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in two separate instances not forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any act within the meaning of the term 'goonda' as defined in clause (j) of Section 2. As per the proviso to clause (o) of Section 2, an offence in respect of which a report was filed by a police officer before a lawful authority consequent to the seizure, in the presence of witnesses, of alcohol, spirit, counterfeit notes, sand, forest produce, articles violating copyright, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or currency involved in hawala racketeering may be included for consideration though the report had resulted from an action initiated by a police officer. As per the Explanation, an instance of an offence involving a person, which satisfies the conditions specified in the definition of known rowdy referred to in clause (p) of Section 2 can also be taken into consideration as an instance, along with other cases, for deciding whether the person is a known goonda or not.

13. Clause (p) of Section 2 of thedefine 'known rowdy' to mean any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act, - (i) made guilty, by a competent court at least once for an offence of the nature under item (i) of clause (t) of Section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or (ii) made guilty, by a competent court at least twice for any offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or (iii) found on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2. As per the proviso to clause (p) of Section 2, any offence committed by a person, - (i) by virtue of his involvement as a member of the family or a close relative of the family in an incident which took place by reason of a family dispute or quarrel involving family members of close relatives on either side; or (ii) by virtue of his involvement as a neighbour or as a close relative of the neighbour in an incident which occurred due to a dispute between immediate neighbours; or (iii) by virtue of his involvement as an employee of any establishment in an incident which occurred in connection with a dispute between himself and the establishment with regard to the conditions of service; or (iv) as a member of the student community in a recognised educational institution, by virtue of his involvement, merely by his presence but without any overt act constituting the offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2 without being involved in any criminal conspiracy facilitating the same, in an incident which occurred due to the general involvement of students of the institution in that particular incident; or (v) as a member of a recognised political party, by virtue of his involvement merely by his presence, but without any overt act constituting the offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2 without being involved in any criminal conspiracy facilitating the same, in an incident which occurred due to the general involvement of the workers of that party in an agitation or protest or programme organised by the party with prior information given to the police officer or magistrate having jurisdiction; or (vi) by virtue of his involvement in a criminal act committed by him before he had attained the age of eighteen years, shall be omitted from the computation of the number of offences taken into account for deciding whether a person is a known rowdy.

14. Clause (t) of Section 2 of thedefine 'rowdy' to mean and includes a person who either by himself or as a member of a gang commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any offences under sections 153A and 153B of Chapter VIII and Chapters XV, XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or any offences under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, - (i) punishable with five or more years of imprisonment of any type, or; (ii) with less than five years of imprisonment of any type, except those punishable with less than one year of imprisonment; or (iii) such offences under any other law for the time being in force, coming under item (i) or (ii), as may be notified by the Government, from time to time.

15. Section 3 of thedeals with the power to make orders for detaining known goondas and known rowdies. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3, the Government or an officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any known goonda or known rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. As per sub-section (2) of Section 3, if having regard to the circumstances prevailing, or likely to prevail in any area, the Government, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do, may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the said order, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may exercise the powers under sub-section (1) in respect of such persons residing within his jurisdiction or in respect of such persons not so resident who have been indulging in or about to indulge in or abet any anti- social activities within such jurisdiction. As per sub-section (3) of Section 3, when any order is made under this section by the authorised officer under sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government and the Director General of Police, Kerala, together with a copy of the order and supporting records which, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days, excluding public holidays, from the date of detention of such known goonda or known rowdy, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Government or by the Secretary, Home Department if generally so authorised in this regard by the Government.

16. Section 9 of thedeals with reference to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 and Section 10 deals with the procedure of Advisory Board and further action. Section 12 of thedeals with maximum period of detention. As per Section 12, substituted by Act 41 of 2014, in pursuance of the first detention order made against any person under this Act and confirmed under Section 10, he may be detained for a period which may extend up to six months from the date of detention and in pursuance of such subsequent detention order made against such person, he may be detained for a period which may extend up to a maximum of one year.

17. Section 13 of thedeals with the revocation of detention order. As per sub-section (1) of Section 13, a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government. As per sub-section (2) of Section 13, the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3 against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda as given in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) and if, - (i) after release, he is, found to have again involved in an offence of the nature described in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) at least in one instance; or (ii) the facts, which came to the notice of the Government or the authorised officer after the issuance of the earlier detention order, considered along with previously known facts are sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to indulge in or promote or abet anti-social activities; or (iii) the procedural errors or omissions, by reason of which the first order was revoked, are rectified in the procedure followed with regard to the subsequent order, even if the subsequent order is based on the very same facts as the first order.

18. In the instant case, as borne out from the Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023 of the Sponsoring Authority, the detenu is a person continuously involved in anti-social activities and offences of the nature described in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA and that, he is a threat to the maintenance of public peace and tranquillity in the area. The detenu got involved in 13 criminal cases during the period from 2013 to 2022, the particulars of which were furnished to the 2nd respondent District Magistrate in Ext.P2 report of the Sponsoring Authority. In the said report, it is stated that the detenu is a 'known rowdy' as defined in Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA. The detenu is a person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years, as calculated from the date of the order imposing detention under the KAAPA, found on investigation by a competent police officer, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in 13 separate instances not forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2.

19. In the year 2019, the detenu was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA from 01.12.2019, vide order No.DCKLM/11720/19-M9(CC) of the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, Kollam. He was released from preventive detention earlier based on judicial intervention. The detenu was again involved in several crimes. Therefore, proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA were initiated and he was detained for a period of 6 months from 13.06.2022, vide order No.DCKLM/ 4433/2022- M16 of the 2nd respondent District Magistrate. The detenu was released on 12.12.2022, on the completion of the term of preventive detention. Immediately thereafter, he was arrested on 26.12.2022 and detained in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

20. The offences committed by the detenu included bodily hurt using dangerous weapons, criminal intimidation, attempts to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, outraging the modesty of women, etc. As per Ext.P2 report of the Sponsoring Authority, the detenu is a threat to people living in the locality. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were initiated against the detenu and his name was included in the rowdy history sheet. Bail conditions were regularly flouted by the detenu. Since the criminal activities remain unabated, the Sponsoring Authority found that preventive detention of the detenu is the only option to protect the public.

21. Based on Ext.P3 report dated 20.01.2023 of the 4th respondent Station House Officer, the Sponsoring Authority submitted Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023 before the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2)(i) of the KAAPA. After the submission of Ext.P2 report, the detenu got bail in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam, in C.M.P.No.96 of 2023, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. By the letter dated 23.02.2023, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate sought for further details from the Sponsoring Authority, regarding the independent witness statements, wound certificate and the possibility of getting bail in the last crime, i.e., Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station. The Sponsoring Authority submitted the details, along with Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2023. A copy of the bail order was also submitted before the District Magistrate, as an additional document, along with Ext.P4 report.

22. After perusing the records in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, including the FIR, remand report, affidavit of the investigating officer and other materials, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the detenu is involved in the above case along with other accused. After committing the crime and knowing the consequences, he made an attempt to settle the case with the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed an affidavit before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam, where C.M.P.No.96 of 2023 was moved to release the detenu on bail. The detenu was granted bail by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Magistrate Court. On going through the records, the 2nd respondent noticed that the crime committed by the detenu is non- compoundable, which is of a serious nature and the settlement cannot be acted upon to hold that the last prejudicial activity was foisted against the detenu to invoke the provisions of section 3(1) of the KAAPA. The detenu, who completed the term of preventive detention as per the earlier order was released on 12.12.2022. Immediately thereafter, he was found to have again been involved in an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station and he was arrested on 26.12.2022. The District Magistrate, after going through the records, found that the involvement of the detenu in the said crime after the issuance of the earlier detention order, if considered along with previously known facts, is sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to indulge in or promote or abet anti-social activities.

23. In Radhika B. v. State of Kerala and others [ 2015 (2) KHC 183 [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] ] the issue that came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court was whether the alleged occurrences taken into consideration while passing an order of detention, which was revoked by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA on the advice of the Advisory Board, could be counted along with the later prejudicial acts, for issuance of another detention order under Section 3 of the KAAPA in terms of Section 13(2) thereof. The Full Bench answered the reference in both the cases by declaring that the revocation of an order of detention under the KAAPA on the basis of the advice of the Board under sub-section (4) of Section 10 does not take away the efficacy of the alleged acts counted for the detention order so revoked, to exclude them from being reckoned to impose another detention order as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the. The revocation of a detention order by the Government, either on the basis of the advice of the Advisory Board or otherwise, makes out no qualitative distinction; and, therefore, the quality of revocation of the detention order under sub-section (4) of Section 10 is, in no way, different from the quality of revocation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the. The Full Bench overruled the decision reported in Praseetha v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 382] to the extent of declaration of law made herein. The Full Bench observed that in the aforesaid view of the matter, clearly emanating out of the provisions of the KAAPA themselves, it was not necessary to make reference to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court on the basis of the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSAA), referred to in Praseetha 2009 (4) KHC 382]; more particularly, because, the provisions of COFEPOSAA are not in pari materia with those of the KAAPA in hand. Paragraphs 7 to 14 of the said decision read thus;

"7. To resolve the controversies raised in these matters, particularly as to the effect of the Board's recommendations, in the first instance, it is profitable to examine the jurisdiction of the Board constituted in terms of Section 8 of the. Section 9 of theprovides that in every case where a detention order has been made under the, the Government shall place the matter for consideration of the Board in accordance with the prescriptions of that provision. Section 10 lays down the procedure of the Board and further action. Sub-section (4) of that Section provides, among other things, that where the Board has reported that, in its opinion, there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and shall cause the person to be released forthwith. The domain of consideration by the Board in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of theis such that, the only question for decision and advice by it is as regards the particular detention order which went to it for opinion. The Board's authority was to opine whether the order of detention before it then, was founded on sufficient cause; on the basis of the cases which were made the foundation of that particular order of detention. The statutory jurisdiction of the Board in that regard is confined to consideration of the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause, as regards that particular detention order which went for the opinion of the Board. It will be too far-fetched; nay, impermissible; to say that the consideration by the Board at that stage is something that could be treated as one amounting to diffusing the prejudicial nature of the alleged criminal acts reckoned to pass the detention order which was before the Board for such statutory scrutiny.

8. When subsequent conduct of the same person results in prejudicial activity or activities reckonable in terms of the, that will trigger and maintain a live-link with the earlier prejudicial activities, though such earlier prejudicial activities, by themselves, would not have weighed as sufficient enough to sustain the earlier detention order. The advice of the Board in relation to an earlier detention order is only as regards the sufficiency of the cause as to that detention order, on the basis of those prejudicial activities which were reckoned to pass that particular detention order. Such advice of the Board does not purge the efficacy of those prejudicial activities or their vigor as to criminality, to exclude them from being counted when the person concerned involves in prejudicial activities subsequent to the revocation of that detention order. When those earlier prejudicial activities are followed by subsequent prejudicial activity or activities, all of them ought to be taken as a string of potent activities which will sustain with continuity of live-link for the purpose of another order of detention. If the competent authority enters satisfaction as to the requirement to issue another detention order, taking into consideration all or any of the earlier prejudicial activities along with the subsequent prejudicial activities, there is no illegality in that. That is undoubtedly within terms of the.

9. A detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government. That power under Section 13(1) of theis a statutory one. It is a statutory power; so positioned that it ought to be exercised maintaining the requisite constitutional and statutory balance, bearing in mind the constitutional rights of the person against whom the detention order is issued vis-a-vis the powers to detain and the grounds of detention as are provided for in the; without forgetting the object and purpose of the. Therefore, the issuance of an order of revocation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 cannot be made in derogation of the constitutional principles governing the repository of that statutory power; which is nothing short of fairness in action, both in relation to the detenu, as also the public at large; bearing in mind the mischiefs sought to be prevented by such statutory provisions authorising detention orders. Remember; the enacted in 2007, stands now with no successful challenge to its constitutional validity.

10. Looking at sub-section (4) of Section 10, all that can be seen is that the Government have the obligation to revoke a detention order on the advice of the Board on consideration of the grounds of that particular detention order which is compulsorily liable for such scrutiny in terms of Sections 8 to 10 of the. That is an obligatory process in terms of the constitutional provisions governing preventing detention.

11. What emerges from the aforesaid discussions is that once an order of detention is revoked either as a measure of obligatory revocation referable to Section 10(4) of theor by recourse to revocation under Section 13(1), the resultant revocation is, qualitatively, of no distinction among themselves as regards their impact on the prejudicial activities counted for the purpose of the earlier detention order. This means that notwithstanding whether it is an obligatory revocation under Section 10(4) or a voluntary revocation under Section 13(1), the prejudicial activities which were reckoned for the purpose of an earlier detention order can nevertheless be counted, providing the live-link to issue another order of detention against the same person in the light of sub-section (2) of Section 13; which provision is only to the effect that the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3. Therefore, the power to issue the detention order is always under Section 3 and all that sub-section (2) of Section 13 does is to enumerate the situations where another detention order under Section 3 can be issued against the same person who was covered by an earlier detention order.

12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, clearly emanating out of the provisions of the themselves, it was not necessary to make reference to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSAA), referred to in Praseetha v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 382 : ILR 2009 (4 [LQ/KerHC/2009/1446] ) Ker. 896 : 2010 (2) KLT SN 51]; more particularly because, the provisions of COFEPOSAA are not in pari materia with those of the in hand.

13. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at above, we hold that the ratio of Praseetha v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 382 : ILR 2009 (4 [LQ/KerHC/2009/1446] ) Ker. 896 : 2010 (2) KLT SN 51] is erroneous to the extent it is contrary to what is stated herein. We, therefore, answer the reference in both the cases by declaring that the revocation of an order of detention under the on the basis of the advice of the Board under Section 10(4) does not take away the efficacy of the alleged acts counted for the detention order so revoked, to exclude them from being reckoned to impose another detention order as provided under Section 13(2) of the. The revocation of a detention order by the Government, either on the basis of the advice of the Board or otherwise, makes out no qualitative distinction; and, therefore, the quality of revocation of the detention order under sub-section (4) of Section 10 is, in no way, different from the quality of revocation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the. Praseetha v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 382 : ILR 2009 (4 [LQ/KerHC/2009/1446] ) Ker. 896 : 2010 (2) KLT SN 51. is hereby overruled to the extent of declaration of law made herein.

14. We have also considered the particular facts of both the cases referred to the Full Bench. We do not see any ground as to lack of due application of mind or any other vitiating factor that could be upheld to interfere with the detention orders impugned in these writ petitions. All grounds raised against the detention orders fail. These writ petitions are liable to be dismissed repelling the plea extended on behalf of the detenus covered by the orders impugned."

24. In Aswathy v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC 436 [LQ/KerHC/2019/1477] ] a Division Bench of this Court reiterated that the prejudicial activities which were reckoned for the purpose of an earlier detention order can nevertheless be counted, providing live link to issue another order of detention against the same person. In the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, after release from the last detention, the detenu committed further offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 394, 451, 341, 354 and 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, consideration of crimes, which were basis of earlier detention orders, cannot be said to be illegal or improper. Though Section 13 of the KAAPA has been captioned as 'revocation of detention order', sub- section (2) of Section 13 provides that revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another order against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda. The title/caption given to the Section is misleading inasmuch as the provision not only deals with revocation, but also provides for issuance of further detention orders. In such circumstances, one need not place much reliance on the title/caption of the Section. Section 13(2) envisages passing of fresh detention orders, if the person continues to fall under Section 2(o) or Section 2(p). Section 13(2)(ii) enables the detaining authority to consider 'previously known facts' along with the crime/crimes committed after issuance of the earlier detention order, in order to issue another detention order under Section 3. Therefore, for an objective consideration as to whether a person falls under Section 2(o) or Section 2(p), the Detaining Authority indeed can consider the entire criminal history including all previous criminal cases in which the person is/was involved. Such advertence to previously known facts will not vitiate the subsequent subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority on the requirement of passing a detention order, based on crimes which the authority takes into account for that purpose. Paragraphs 12 and 15 to 17 of the said decision read thus;

"12. As regards subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, we find that the detaining authority has considered the fact that the detenu is a person against whom preventive detention orders under KAAPA, were passed earlier also. The detaining authority noted that four of the crimes registered against detenu which were considered in the earlier detention order are still subsisting and while so, the detenu has indulged in a further Crime No.751/2018 of Cantonment Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 394, 451, 341, 354 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority has noted that the detenu has been enlarged on bail in the said Crime and is free from any bail conditions, which are sufficient to prevent him from further commission of crimes. It is taking into account all the relevant information that the detaining authority has passed Ext.P2 detention order. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the argument of the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not evident from records.

xxx xxx xxx

15. The further case of the petitioner is that all the crimes, except Crime No.751/2018 of Cantonment Police Station, were the basis of earlier detention order and it will be improper if not illegal, to base a further order on those crimes. This issue was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Radhika B. v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (2) KHC 183 [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] : 2015 (2) KLT 134 [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] : 2015 (1) KLD 549 : 2015 (2) KLJ 389 [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] : AIR 2015 Ker. 164] [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] , wherein it was held that the prejudicial activities which were reckoned for the purpose of an earlier detention order can nevertheless be counted, providing the live link to issue another order of detention against the same person. In the present case, it has to be noted that after release from the last detention, the detenu committed further offences punishable under Sections294(b), 323, 324, 308, 394, 451, 341, 354 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, consideration of crimes, which were basis of earlier detention orders, cannot be said to be illegal or improper.

16. Yet another argument on behalf of the detenu is that in Ext.P2 order, the detaining authority has observed that detenu is a person involved in various offences including murder. However, none of the five cases taken into account by the detaining authority include an offence under S.302 IPC, which would only show that the authority has passed Ext.P2 in a mechanical manner. On examination of the materials, we find that while considering the antecedents of the detenu, the detaining authority has noted that the detenu was involved in an offence under Section 302 IPC earlier. However, the detaining authority has not based its order on the said crime.

17. A reading of Section 13 of the KAAPA is necessary for clarity and guidance in this regard. Section 13 reads thus:

"13. Revocation of detention order.- (1) A detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government.

(2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3 against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda as given in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) and if,-

(i) after release, he is, found to have, again involved in an offence of the nature described in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p); or at least one instance; or

(ii) the facts, which came to the notice of the Government or the authorised officer after the issuance of the earlier detention order, considered along with previously known facts are sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to indulge in or promote or abet antisocial activities; or

(iii) the procedural errors or omissions, by reason of which the first order was revoked, are rectified in the procedure followed with regard to the subsequent order, even if the subsequent order is based on the very same facts as the first order."

Though Section 13 has been captioned as 'Revocation of detention order', sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another order against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda. The title/caption given to the Section is misleading inasmuch as the provision not only deals with revocation, but also provides for issuance of further detention orders. In such circumstances, one need not place much reliance on the title/caption of the Section. Section 13(2) envisages passing of fresh detention orders, if the person continues to fall under Section 2(o) or Section 2(p). Section 13(2)(ii) enables the detaining authority to consider 'previously known facts' along with the crime/ crimes committed after issuance of the earlier detention order, in order to issue another detention order under Section 3. Therefore, for an objective consideration as to whether a person falls under Section 2(o) or Section 2(p), the detaining authority indeed can consider the entire criminal history including all previous criminal cases in which the person is/was involved. Such advertence to previously known facts will not vitiate the subsequent subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority on the requirement of passing a detention order, based on crimes which the authority takes into account for that purpose. In the present case, though the detaining authority has noted the offence under Section 302 IPC in which the detenu was involved earlier, the said crime has not anchored the detention order. The argument of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, unsustainable."

25. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate has taken into consideration all relevant facts like crimes registered against the detenu, rowdy history sheet, initiation of security proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the earlier detention orders, bail conditions, etc., while issuing Ext.P1 detention order, invoking the provisions under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2) of the KAAPA. All those materials were placed before the Detaining Authority along with Ext.P2 and P4 reports of the Sponsoring Authority. After considering the said reports and the records relating to the criminal cases in which the detenu is involved, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate in Ext.P1 detention order dated 03.04.2023 arrived at a conclusion that the detenu, by his overt act in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, immediately after his release from preventive detention, falls under the category of 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA, who should be prevented from committing further anti-social activities. In view of the provisions under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the KAAPA, the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3 against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda as given in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) and if, after release, he is, found to have again involved in an offence of the nature described in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) at least in one instance and as per clause (ii) of sub-section (2), if the facts, which came to the notice of the Government or the authorised officer after the issuance of the earlier detention order, considered along with previously known facts are sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to indulge in or promote or abet anti-social activities. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Radhika B. [2015 (2) KHC 183 [LQ/KerHC/2015/714] ] and reiterated in Aswathy [2019 (5) KHC 436 [LQ/KerHC/2019/1477] ], the prejudicial activities which were reckoned for the purpose of an earlier detention order can nevertheless be counted, providing live link to issue another order of detention against the same person. As the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, who is the Detaining Authority, arrived at the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention of the detenu, under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2) of the KAAPA, Ext.P1 detention order was passed on 03.04.2023, for preventive detention of the detenu for a period of one year. Based on Ext.P1 detention order, the detenu was again arrested on 04.04.2023. The 1st respondent State, by Ext.P5 order dated 05.07.2023, confirmed Ext.P1 detention order, after considering the report of the Advisory Board under the KAAPA and the representation submitted by the detenu. The Detaining Authority, after examination of relevant materials and proper application of mind, passed Ext.P1 detention order, in the larger public interest, which stands confirmed by the 1st respondent State in Ext.P5 order.

26. Another contention raised on behalf of the detenu is that the detenu has been released on bail in all the cases against him, which are pending before the court, and the bail conditions are sufficient to control organised anti-social activities on the part of the detenu.

27. As already noticed hereinbefore, the offences committed by the detenu included bodily hurt using dangerous weapons, criminal intimidation, attempts to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, outraging the modesty of women, etc. As per Ext.P2 report of the Sponsoring Authority, the detenu is a threat to the people living in the locality. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against the detenu and his name was included in the rowdy history sheet. Bail conditions were regularly flouted by the detenu. Since the criminal activities remain unabated, the Detaining Authority found that preventive detention of the detenu is the only option to protect the public. The Detaining Authority has applied his mind and collected information and then passed an order detaining the detenu, finding that less drastic remedy including proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and cancellation of bail are not sufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing his illegal and anti-social activities.

28. Another contention raised on behalf of the detenu is that there is no live link from the last prejudicial activity to the date of Ext.P1 detention order, since there occurred an inordinate delay of three months and eight days in passing that order. Moreover, in the subsequent crime, i.e., Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, the detenu got bail by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam.

29. In Golam Hussain @ Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta [(1974) 4 SCC 530] [LQ/SC/1974/105] the Apex Court noticed that the branch of jurisprudence bearing on prohibitory detention has been crystallised and it is no longer a valid contention that because the accused has been discharged in a criminal case the ground of charge cannot be relied upon by the appropriate authority for passing an order of detention. The former relates to the punitive branch of criminal law and relates to the past commission, the latter to the preventive branch of social defence and protects the community from future injury. This branch of jurisprudence, as interpreted by the Court, has made it futile for a detenu to urge that because the grounds of detention have been the subject-matter of criminal cases which have ended in discharge, therefore the order of detention is mala fide. The basic imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the 'subjective satisfaction' component of imprisonment for reasons of internal security. To quarrel with such a proposition is to challenge the wisdom of Parliament.

30. In Golam Hussain @ Gama [(1974) 4 SCC 530] [LQ/SC/1974/105] one of the contentions raised by the detenu was that there has been a long interval of nine months between the criminal incidents of October and November, 1972, and the detention order of July, 1973. The learned counsel for the detenu relied on the decisions in Lakshman Khatik v. State of West Bengal [(1974) 4 SCC 1] [LQ/SC/1974/73] , Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan [AIR 1964 SC 334 [LQ/SC/1963/214] ]. After considering the rival contentions, the Apex Court held that it is true that there must be a live link between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the Detaining Authority and the purpose of detention, namely, inhibition of prejudicial activity of the species specified in the statute. This credible chain is snapped if there is too long and unexplained interval between the offending acts and the order of detention. Such is the ratio of proximity in Lakshman Khatik [(1974) 4 SCC 1] [LQ/SC/1974/73] . No authority, acting rationally, can be satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of future mischief merely because long ago the detenu had done something evil. To rule otherwise is to sanction a simulacrum of a statutory requirement. But no mechanical test by counting the months of the interval is sound. It all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. The Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. If the Detaining Authority takes the chance of conviction and, when the court verdict goes against it, falls back on its detention power to punish one whom the court would not convict, it is an abuse and virtual nullification of the judicial process. But if honestly finding a dangerous person getting away with it by overawing witnesses or concealing the commission cleverly, an authority thinks on the material before him that there is a likelihood of and need to interdict public disorder at his instance, he may validly direct detention. The distinction is fine but real. It is one thing to say that a mere subjective satisfaction is sufficient to deprive a person of fundamental freedom; it is another to reject that satisfaction as specious and non-existent. Parliament makes the law and is responsible for it; the court only applies it, as it must.

31. In Rahila Nazeer v. State of Kerala and others [ 2016 (3) KHC 189 [LQ/KerHC/2016/162] ] a Division Bench of this Court held that factual situation in each case is relevant to decide whether delay is inordinate so as to vitiate the order of detention and that if delay is satisfactorily explained, it cannot be held that the live link is snapped. On the facts of the case on hand, after considering the sequence and chronology of events, the Division Bench found that there is no substantial delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding its report and the short time lag has been properly explained.

32. In the instant case, the detenu was released on 12.12.2022, on the completion of the term of preventive detention. Immediately thereafter, he was arrested on 26.12.2022 and detained in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Based on Ext.P3 report dated 20.01.2023 of the 4th respondent Station House Officer, the Sponsoring Authority submitted Ext.P2 report dated 28.01.2023 before the 2nd respondent District Magistrate, under Section 3(1), read with Section 13(2)(i) of the KAAPA. After the submission of Ext.P2 report, the detenu got bail in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, by the order dated 30.01.2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam in C.M.P.No.96 of 2023, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. By the letter dated 23.02.2023, the 2nd respondent sought for further details from the Sponsoring Authority, regarding the independent witness statements, wound certificate and the possibility of getting bail in the last crime, i.e., Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station. The Sponsoring Authority submitted the details, along with Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2023. A copy of the bail order was also submitted before the 2nd respondent as an additional document, along with Ext.P4 report. After perusing the records in Crime No.791 of 2022 of Pallithottam Police Station, including the FIR, remand report, affidavit of the investigating officer and other materials on record, the 2nd respondent was prima facie satisfied that the detenu is involved in the above case along with other accused and accordingly, passed Ext.P1 detention order dated 03.04.2023. On the facts of the case on hand, after considering the sequence and chronology of events, we find that there is no substantial delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding its report or the Detaining Authority, for passing Ext.P1 detention order.

33. In the above circumstances, the challenge made in this writ petition against Exts.P1 and P5 orders fail and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.