R. BASANT, J.

Does a detenu under a law providing for preventive detention have a fundamental right to be communicated with the order passed on the representation made by him in exercise of his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

ii) Does the communication by anyone other than the authority passing the order of the fate of the representation made by the detenu (and not the order as such) infringe such fundamental right of the detenu?

iii) Has Ext.P3 representation to the Government received the irreducible minimum of "a real and proper consideration" which it is entitled to under law when it was rejected by Ext.R1(d) order dated 05.09.2009 which was communicated to the detenu under Ext.R1

(b) letter?

iv) Is the practice of cryptic one line (nay, one word at times) orders being passed on such representations by the authorities on the basis of notes put up by the subordinates, in tune with the high constitutional values and concern for right to life, personal liberty and freedom of the individual recognised by our system?

These questions arise for consideration before us in this Writ Petition.

2. To the crucially relevant and vital facts first. The petitioner's friend, a young lady in her late thirties by name Ms.Sobha John, was ordered to be detained under Ext.P1 order of detention dt.06.08.09 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA'). The said Sobha John, (the detenue hereafter), was in custody in an earlier crime. She remained in custody from 05.06.09. Ext.P1 order of detention was passed when she was so in custody already. Judicial custody was transformed into preventive detention custody on 17.08.09 in execution of the order of detention. Approval of the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA was granted on 24.08.09. The confirmation of the order under Section 10(4) was issued on 21.10.09. She therefore continues in custody from 17.08.09 under Ext.P1 order.

3. She was reckoned as a known rowdy by the detaining authority in view of 4 cases registered against her. In 3 of them, final reports have already been filed. In the fourth, final report has not been filed and the same is pending investigation.

4. The alleged detenue submitted representations -Exts.P2 and P3 in exercise of her constitutional right under Article 22(5) which right is statutorily recognised in Section 7 (2) of the KAAPA. The representation to the Government, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, is not seen dated. But Ext.R1(b) order shows that the same was dated 24.08.09. It is not disputed that the power of the Government to consider such representation under the rules of business of the Government has been delegated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance). The said Additional Chief Secretary passed the order on such representation on 05.09.09 which is available in Ext.R1 (d). The order reads:

"Request does not deserve consideration.

Rejected".

Sd/-

The Additional Chief Secretary

05.09.09."

That order was communicated to the detenue by Ext.R1(b) letter dated 08.09.09 by Shri B.Babu, Deputy Secretary, evidently a subordinate of the Addl.Chief Secretary. It will be apposite to extract the contents of the said letter sans unnecessary details.

"I am to inform you that your representation cited has been examined by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance) on behalf of Government but it is regretted to inform that the same has been rejected since it contains no valid points for consideration."

(emphasis supplied)

5. We are not adverting to the other facts which may not have a direct relevance for our consideration of the 4 questions raised above.

6. Various grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S.Sreekumar and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution Sri.K.K.Ravindranath in detail. In the na