Basant, J.

When does the clock start ticking under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA') - on the date of the order of detention or the date of detention ?

(ii) How is the expression "forthwith" in Section 3(3) to be understood and reckoned ?

(iii) Is the detenu entitled to a copy of the report of the Advisory Board under Section 10

(3) of the KAAPA ?

(iv) Can the absence of any previous conviction justify the claim to exclude a person from the sweep of the expression `known goonda' in Section 2(o) of the KAAPA ?

These questions are raised in this Writ Petition.

2. In this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, the mother of a detenu under the KAAPA, prays that her son the detenu may be directed to be produced before the Court and set at liberty after setting aside Ext.P4 order of detention issued under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA.

3. The petitioner's son was allegedly involved in 7 crimes referred to in Ext.P4 order. By Ext.P4 order dated 03.03.09 issued by the 2nd respondent, the detenu was ordered to be detained. The order of detention was executed on 09.03.09. The records were submitted to the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA on 13.03.2009. The order of detention was approved by the Government as per Ext.P6 order dt.23.03.09 passed under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA. The detenu made a representation before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board considered the same at its sitting on 05.05.09. Reference was answered by the Advisory Board by order dt.07.05.09. The same was communicated to the Government and the Government by Ext.P7 order dt.11.05.09 confirmed the order of detention for a period of 6 months.

4. Shri B.Premnath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detention of the detenu is in violation of the provisions of the KAAPA and in these circumstances the

detention is liable to be set aside and the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. 4 specific grounds are raised.

(i) The order of detention under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA is not approved by the Government within 12 days of the order of detention and this offends the mandate of Section 3(3) of the KA.

(ii) There is infraction of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the KAAPA inasmuch as there was delay on the part of the District Magistrate in forwarding the order of detention and connected records to the Government.

(iii) Copy of the report of the Advisory Board has not been furnished to the detenu and this offends the implied mandate of Section 10(3) of the KAAPA.

(iv) The detenu is not a known goonda answering the definition in Section 2(o) of the KAAPA inasmuch as there is no previous conviction against him.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. We shall now proceed to consider the 4 grounds raised.

Ground No.1

6. The order of detention (Ext.P4) was passed on 03.03.09 admittedly. In execution of Ext.P4 order dt.03.03.09, the detenu was arrested at 12 noon on 09.03.09. The records were forwarded to the Government by the 2nd respondent/District Magistrate only on

13.03.09. The order of approval was passed on 23.03.09. On these factual aspects, there is no dispute. When does the clock start ticking under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA ? This is the crucial question. The order of approval under Ext.P6 was passed only on 23.03.09. If the clock starts ticking on the date of the order of detention (ie. 03.03.09), the approval under Ext.P6 on 23.03.09 is certainly beyond the period of time stipulated. But the learned Addl.D.G.P contends that the date of the order of detention is not crucial or vital and the date of detention is the crucial date to compute the period of 12 days under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA.

7. We are in ready agreement with the learned Addl.D.G.P. We extract below Section 3

(3) of the KAAPA.

Section 3: Power to make orders for detaining Known