Basant,J.

1) Which Police Officer can make a report to the Government/District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') ?

2) Can an offence allegedly committed beyond seven years from the date of the order of detention be reckoned to bring a person within the sweep of 'known goonda' under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA?

3) Can an offence allegedly committed, the investigation into which by the police is not finally completed, be taken into reckoning while considering inclusion of a person within the expression known goonda and known rowdy under Section 2(o)(ii) and 2p(iii) of the KAAPA?

4) Is the omission to furnish the document (a further report by the Police Officer under Section 3(1), on the basis of which the requisite satisfaction is entertained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA, fatal?

2. The petitioner has filed this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the production of her husband Santhosh Kumar,who is detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA'), to set aside the order of detention, Ext.P1 and to set him at liberty.

3. Against the said Santhosh Kumar, four cases are pending, the details of which are shown below:

TABLE

4. A report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA was submitted by N.Gopalakrishnan,IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Thiruvananthapuram City (Respondent No.3) to the District Collector and District Magistrate (Respondent No.2). Ext.P3 is the said report dated 9-12-2008. That report was received by the second respondent, but no action was taken on that report. The District Magistrate, it appears, only directed that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. which was pending against the detenu as Crime No.182/2008 of Vanchiyoor Police Station must be completed expeditiously.

5. At that stage, the third respondent submitted a further report dated 13-3-2009 to the District Magistrate (respondent No.3). It is thereafter that order of detention (Ext.P1) was passed by the District Magistrate. The detenu was arrested on 2-4-2009. His detention was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA. He had made a representation to the Advisory Board. The recommendations of the Advisory Board has been received and the order of detention has been confirmed under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA.

6. The petitioner, the wife of the detenu has come to this Court with a prayer that the order of detention may be set aside and her husband, the detenu may be set at liberty. Counter affidavits filed and the documents produced have been perused. Arguments have been heard.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention on the following grounds:

1) The third respondent is not a competent officer who can submit the report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA.

2) Case No.1 referred above in which the alleged incident took place on 13-2-2002 should not have been taken into account to decide whether the detenu is a known rowdy under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA.

3) There has been total non-application of mind before passing Ext.P1 order of detention.

4) Case Nos.3 and 4 referred above should not have been taken into reckoning to decide whether the detenu is a known rowdy under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA.

5) At any rate, the omission to furnish the further report dated 13-3-2009 submitted by the third respondent to the second respondent, to the detenu has adversely affected his right to know the grounds of detention and to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

8. Ground No.1: Under Section 3 of the KAAPA, the Government or its delegate, the District Magistrate can act only on the basis of information received from specified officials. Section 3(1) which we extracted below clearly settles the position beyond any doubt.

"3. Power to make orders detaining Known Goondas and Known