Mohanan, J.

This writ petition is filed by one Smt Jameela who claimed to be the first cousin of one Mr. Basheer, who is detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 2007 (hereinafter referred to for short as ‘KAAPO, 2007’) with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenu Sri. Basheer before this Court and to release him forthwith. It is also prayed inter alia to call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

2. In the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner has chosen to prefer this writ petition as her cousin, the detenu is unable to approach this Court as he is detained and thus this petition is being filed by the petitioner as the next friend of the detenu. According to the averments contained in the writ petition, the detention or Mr. Basheer as per Ext.P1, which is an order issued by the third respondent in exercise of her powers under Section 3 of KAAPO, 2007, is illegal since on the date of issuance of Ext.P1 and at the time of his arrest pursuant to Ext.P1, the detenu was in the judicial custody in connection with some criminal cases in the Sub Jail, Manjeri. It is also stated at the time of passing Ext.P1 order, the detenu was already in custody connected with certain criminal cases in which investigation was going on and with respect to certain other criminal cases, final report has already been filed and the petitioner was granted bail by the concerned Magistrate Court. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced Ext.P2, which is a representation dated 24.9.2007 filed by the detenu before the Chairman, Advisory Board and according to the petitioner, the Advisory Board and according to the petitioner, the Advisory Board has not passed any order therein in exercise of the powers under Section 7 (1) of the KAAPO, 2007. In the said representation, several grounds were urged in support of the plea against Ext.P1 detention order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 was issued in total non-application of mind by the third respondent and no document was supplied to the detenu by the third respondent. It is also stated therein that there is no nexus between the alleged incidents and Ext.P1 detention order. It is also contended therein that the denial of supplying of documents will amount to denial of right of the detenu to make effective representation as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is also urged therein that the order of detention is actuated by mala fides and there is no independent consideration of the materials by the detaining authority other than what was reported by the sponsoring authority. According to the petitioner, it is specifically urged that the detaining authority has not stated as to what is the imminent danger for the public peace and tranquility if the detenu is loomed at large. Thus, according to the petitioner, several legal issues are raised through the above representation and those issues are directly concerned with the application of various provisions contained in the Constitution of India so as to ensure the fundamental right of the detenu as a citizen of India. But, according to the petitioner, even Ext.P2 has not been considered by the Advisory Board which is an authority constituted as per the provisions of the KAAPO, 2007 and therefore the continued detention will amount to gross violation of the rights conferred by the provisions of the Constitution of India. In support of the fervent plea to quash Ext.P1 detention order, the petitioner has raised several legal and factual grounds. It is stated that Ext.P1 detention order is passed with total non-application of mind and the same is vitiated due to the violation of procedural safeguards given under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. It is stated in the writ petition on the strength of the decision in Ra