This writ petition is a sequel to an earlier petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of her husband from preventive detention.

2. The order of detention (Ext.P1) issued under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier proceeding contending inter alia that the detaining authority had issued the order without any application of mind at all since, according to the petitioner, her husband would not have fallen within the ambit of the definition of "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p) of the Act. But, the above and the other contentions were repelled and the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated January 21, 2009, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P4.

3. The present writ petition is filed primarily impugning Ext.P5 order issued by the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act confirming the order of detention after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board.

4. It is contended by Sri. Ramakumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention in a mechanical manner, merely for the reason that the detenu is involved in six criminal cases. The investigation is still in progress in those crimes, and so long as the investigation is not complete and charge sheet is not laid before the competent court, it cannot be said that Section 2(p)(iii) would be attracted. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Chapters XI,XII and XXII to which reference has been made in Ext.P3 grounds of detention, have absolutely no application as far as the crimes allegedly registered against the detenu are concerned. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, will show that the detaining authority has not applied its mind at all while issuing the order of detention. In any view of the matter, preventive detention is not at all warranted, even assuming some crimes registered against the detenu are under investigation.

5. As indicated earlier, the very same order of detention (Ext.P1) was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.455/2008. Identical contentions were raised by the petitioner while impugning the order of detention in the earlier writ petition. At the time of disposal of the earlier writ petition, opinion of the Advisory Board had not been received by the Government. However, the Government confirmed the order of detention as contemplated under Section 10(4) of the Act after accepting the opinion of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient reason to continue the detention of petitioner's husband for six months with effect from the date of his detention, i.e., December 6, 2008.

6. Petitioner has now sought to challenge the order of detention on almost identical grounds, of course with some improvisation which at the first blush may appear to be attractive. But, the underlying issue was in fact considered by this Court in the earlier judgment itself. The mere fact that the detaining authority has referred to one or two chapters of the Indian Penal Code which have no relevance to the facts of the case will not, in our view, invalidate the order of detention.

7. Admittedly, the detenu is involved in not less than six crimes involving offences punishable under Sections 392,394,379,120B,403,406 etc. All the above crimes were registered against the detenu and his accomplices between 2006 and 2008. Having regard to the nature of the offences allegedly committed by the detenue and his accomplices, particularly the modus operandi we are satisfied that the order issued by the detaining authority cannot be assailed.

8. It is undoubtedly true that personal liberty of a person cannot be trifled with by the Police or the executive authority at their whims and fancies. The power of detention has to be exercised by an authority authorised under law with utmost diligence and caution. The order of detention has to satisfy the test of rea