“C.R.” Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
2. The sixth respondent, going by the materials on record, is alleged to have committed different offences. Proceedings are going on in different jurisdictions; may be, including, by way of investigation. That by itself does not generate any right in any citizen, in terms of the Constitution of India, to insist that any particular person, even if his conduct is similar to that of the sixth respondent, should be compulsorily brought under the provisions of the preventive detention laws. No writ of mandamus can be issued to that effect, for the simple reason that courts cannot find WP(C) 22872/14 -2-
breach of any statutory or public duty when the competent authority under the preventive detention laws does not deem it necessary to cover a particular person in any item of preventive detention laws. The objective satisfaction and subjective satisfaction under different preventive detention laws in India do not provide constitutional format to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, direction or order commanding any statutory authority or any Government to initiate proceedings under any preventive detention law. If we were to compel and insist initiation of any such action, that will be infractive of the most precious right to liberty enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India, having particular regard to Articles 21 and 22 thereof. See for support, the judgment dated 27.10.2014 in WP(C) No.27955/2014. We see no ground for the writ court to issue any such direction.
3. In the case in hand, we also see that the police authorities and the official respondents have materials with them on the basis of WP(C) 22872/14 -3-
which they have concluded that the sixth respondent need not be put under the cover of any preventive detention law in the form of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, because he could be taken care of under different provisions, including under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg