JUDGMENT : N.ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction against respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to take immediate action in Ext.P1 representation and to remove his name from the 'goonda' list. 2. The petitioner was the accused in four crimes registered so far at Kottiyam Police Station alleging serious offences against him. The details are as follows:- (a) Crime No.497/2001 under Sections 143,147,148,307 r/w 149 IPC; (b) Crime No.676/2002 under Sections 308,342,324 & 34 IPC; (c) Crime No.505/2007 under Sections 143,144,120B IPC r/w 27 of Arms Act; (d) Crime No.394/2008 under Sections 341,323 & 324 IPC; After investigation, the Police laid charges against the petitioner before the respective courts having jurisdiction. The petitioner was found not guilty of the charges levelled against him, since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the offences alleged against him in the above mentioned cases. 3. Since the petitioner was found repeatedly committing breach of peace and tranquility of the general public, Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act,2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'KAA(P)A'), was invoked against him, as per Order No.GL-733/SIT-TR dated 21.8.2008, issued by the Inspector General of Police (TR) and by the Restriction Order served on 5.9.2008, he was thereafter restricted from entering the District for a period of one year. The petitioner, challenging the said order, moved the Advisory Board. However, the restriction order was approved by the Advisory Board. The petitioner moved this Court and the restriction order was upheld by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner had obeyed the directions in the order. The period fixed in the order was over as early as in 2009. According to the petitioner, after the said period, he got married and was residing peacefully with his wife and aged parents. A female child was also born to the petitioner in the wedlock. Complaining that the peaceful family life of the petitioner has been disturbed by the Police personnel under the second respondent, the petitioner moved several complaints before the Human Rights Commission against the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that the name of the petitioner is still in the 'goonda' list under the third respondent. Complaining that the peaceful family life of the petitioner has been disturbed by the Police personnel under the second respondent, the petitioner moved several complaints before the Human Rights Commission against the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that the name of the petitioner is still in the 'goonda' list under the third respondent. Although the petitioner had filed several representations before the authorities to remove his name from the list, it was not done. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation before the second respondent, as the inclusion of his name in the 'goonda' list has tarnished his image and a source of embarrassment to his family members. 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no list of 'goondas' maintained under 'KAA(P)A', as alleged by the petitioner and Ext.P1 representation preferred by the petitioner was forwarded by the second respondent to the KAA(P)A Cell attached to his office. KAA(P)A Cell is one of the special wings functioning under the District Police Chief, who has been confidentially monitoring the activities of anti-socials and 'goondas'. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, after proper enquiry, a report had been given to the then District Police Chief, Kollam City, wherein the necessity of keeping the petitioner under close surveillance was stressed. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that it was due to the constant surveillance by the Police that the petitioner could not get himself involved in any criminal activities since 2008, and taking into account the antecedents of the petitioner, frequent checking has been necessitated since the possibility of him engaging in anti-social activities could not be ruled out. 5. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the Rowdy History Sheet was opened against the petitioner on 18.2.2009 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam in order to monitor the activities of the petitioner. The provisions of the Kerala Police Manual provides for the maintenance of a continuous record of the criminal history of individuals who were involved in crimes. The crime history maintained in all Police Stations in record, will help a new Station House Officer to study the recent crimes in the station limit and locate the criminals who would probably have committed similar crimes under the investigation of the previous Station House Officer. The relevant portions of the Kerala Police Manual is extracted hereinbelow: “Station Crime History Part VI (Rowdy History Sheet) 259. The relevant portions of the Kerala Police Manual is extracted hereinbelow: “Station Crime History Part VI (Rowdy History Sheet) 259. (1) This is a record maintained individually in KPF 174(D) to keep a progressive record and watch the activities of persons found to be indulged in rowdyism. These sheets will be opened on the orders of the Sub Divisional Police Officer or any higher authority on the basis of the reports from the local police officer or from other sources-- (2) The main forms of rowdyism are:- (1) Indecent behaviour towards women and girls at educational centres, bus stands, parks, Railway Stations, running trains etc. by passing obscene remarks etc. This is popularly known as “Eve-teasing”. (2) Habitually committing affray and rioting. (3) Habitually committing offences involving stabbing (324 IPC). (4) Threatening and beating up prosecution witnesses in court premises and forcing them to turn hostile, by hirelings employed by political parties, moneyed people etc. (5) Intimidation of peace loving people by acts of violence or by show of force or by abusive language. (6) Rowdyism in Cinema Halls, theatres, sports stadiums, milk booths, bus stands, toddy shops, running trains etc. (7) Habitual gambling, smuggling of foodgrains and illicit distillation. (8) Forcible collection of subscriptions. (9) Drunken and disorderly behaviour. (10) Decoying persons to houses of ill-repute by pimps. (11) Snatching of gold chains etc. (12) Any other anti-social activity associated with violence. (3) The History Sheets will be maintained as shown below separately for each individual. Section I (1) Police Station (2) District (3) Date of opening with reference to the orders under which opened. (4) Date of closing, with name and designation of the officer passing the order and the reference number and date of the order. Section II (1) Name of rowdy with aliases if any. (2) Age (approx) and year. (3) Descriptive roll (with photo if available) (4) Father's name (5) Address (6) Profession or occupation if any, of the rowdy (7) Probable haunts and resource. Section II (1) Name of rowdy with aliases if any. (2) Age (approx) and year. (3) Descriptive roll (with photo if available) (4) Father's name (5) Address (6) Profession or occupation if any, of the rowdy (7) Probable haunts and resource. (8) Names of other Police Stations within whose jurisdiction also he may be active (9) Associates with address (10) Near relatives with their address (11) Short biography and circumstances under which the sheet is opened (12) Running history N.B.---In the running history all the criminal activities of the rowdy including reasonable suspicion of his complicity in cases and/or complaints against him with crime numbers if any, and result of the cases etc., should be mentioned in separate paragraphs which should be numbered chronologically. Against each entry in the running history there should be references to G.D. entries, crime numbers, mass petitions, petty cases etc. Section III Petitions and enquiry reports which may be of relevance future security proceedings. Section IV Record of Check by C.Is. and instructions. (4) Rowdy history sheets in a Station shall be numbered serially in the following manner:- (1) Separately for those resident in the Station limits. (2) For non-residents separately for each Station. Serial number will be written in red ink and will be preceded by abbreviation letters denoting the particular station. Note: The S.H.O of the Station in which the person for whom a Rowdy History Sheet is opened resides, shall furnish a copy of the sheet to the S.H.O. of any other Station in which also he may be active (ref. item 8 section ii) of the sheet. (5) The Sub Inspector of Police in charge of the Station should maintain the Rowdy History Sheets personally or under his direct supervision. Whenever any entry is made in the G.D. non-cognizable case register or Petty Case Register about an individual for whom a History Sheet is maintained, relevant notes from the above registers should be made in the History Sheets also. (6) The Circle Inspector of Police should check the Rowdy History Sheets of a Station during the visits and inspections and make a record of it with instructions, if any, in Section IV of the Sheet. (7) Activities of non-resident rowdies should be promptly communicated to the concerned Police Station in B.C. Rolls after making entries in Item 12, Section ii of Station History Sheet. (7) Activities of non-resident rowdies should be promptly communicated to the concerned Police Station in B.C. Rolls after making entries in Item 12, Section ii of Station History Sheet. (8) A Rowdy History Sheet may be closed on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, based on the recommendations of the Circle Inspector of Police routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police. (9) List of Rowdies of a Circle will be maintained in the Office of the Circle Inspector of Police. The Circle Inspector of Police will check the list with the Rowdy History Sheets in the respective Police Station every half year. (10)Rowdies may be dealt with under the following provisions of Law:- (1) Section 106 Cr.P.C.(Security for keeping the peace on conviction) (2)Section 107 Cr.P.C. (Security for keeping the peace etc.) (3) Section 109 Cr.P.C.(Security from vagrants etc.) (4) Section 110(F) Cr.P.C. (Security for good behaviour from a person so desperate and dangerous etc.) (5) Sections 48, 51 and 51A of the Kerala Police Act (For being found armed between sunset and sunrise intending to commit an offence, drunken and disorderly conduct, riotous or indecent behaviour in street etc. respectively) (6) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs ---Section 294 IPC (7) Prosecution for any other specific offence that may be committed” 6. respectively) (6) Prosecution in appropriate cases for obscene acts and songs ---Section 294 IPC (7) Prosecution for any other specific offence that may be committed” 6. The term 'rowdy' is defined under the KAA(P)A. Section 2(t) reads as follows:- “2(t) “rowdy” means 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 & XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860), or any offences under the provision of the Arms Act,1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act 6 of 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.” Section 2(p) reads as follows:- “(p) “known rowdy” means 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; Provided that 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; “7. Basically, it is the responsibility of the Station House Officers to find out whether there are 'known rowdies' indulging in or about to indulge in or abet any anti-social activity within their area and furnish the necessary inputs to the respective Superintendent of Police, who is the sponsoring authority. On the information received from such a sponsoring authority, it is for the Government or authorised officer (District Magistrate) to pass an order of detention, in exercise of their powers under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A. Preventive detention under the English Common law, is discernible from THE KING (AT THE PROSECUTION OF ARTHUR ZADIG) v. HALLIDAY [1917 AC 260]. It was held that preventive detention is not punitive but a precautionary measure to prevent apprehended objectionable activities. Lord Macmillan in LIVERSIDGE v. SIR JOHN ANDERSON AND ANOTHER [1942 AC 206] held that, the object of preventive detention is not to punish a person for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and prevent him from doing it. Both the above decisions were approved by the Supreme Court in A.K Gopalan V. State of Madras, [ AIR 1950 SC 27 ]. 8. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner has been indulging in or about to indulge in or abet any anti-social activity within their area warranting an action under the KAA(P)A. The jurisdiction of such an action is suspicion or reasonable probability and not the criminal conviction which can be warranted by legal evidence after the accused is found guilty in a trial in which the accused has the fullest opportunity to defend himself from the charges. Though four crimes were registered against the petitioner by the Station House Officer, Kottiyam Police Station, the petitioner has already been acquitted in the said cases after recording the evidence. In fact, the petitioner has not committed any offence or breach of peace for the last ten years. The petitioner cannot therefore be termed as a habitual offender. 9. Paragraph 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual provides that Rowdy History Sheet may be closed on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, based on the recommendations of the Circle Inspector of Police routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police. The petitioner cannot therefore be termed as a habitual offender. 9. Paragraph 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual provides that Rowdy History Sheet may be closed on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, based on the recommendations of the Circle Inspector of Police routed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police. When that is the position, certainly, the petitioner in the present case has been facing the brunt of the insult of including his name in the rowdy list for the last ten years without any reason whatsoever. 10. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India assures every one “right to life and personal liberty”, which includes the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life. As far as personal liberty is concerned, it means freedom from physical restraint of a person by personal incarceration or otherwise, and it includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided under Article 19 of the Constitution. If the assertion made by the petitioner in Ext.P1 representation is correct, the respondents are obliged to ensure the fundamental right to life guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution including his right to live with dignity. Hence, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation, hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in terms of paragraph 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if at all the petitioner involves himself in any criminal activities in future and if a considered opinion is formed by the respondents based on materials and solid evidence, appropriate action in accordance with law can still be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.