Basant, J.

Does the yawning gap of time between the order of detention under Section 3(3) and the execution of the same under Section 4 of the of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA) justify the prayer for invalidation of detention? This is the main question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. To the fundamental facts first. The petitioner is the wife of the detenue, Murukan by name. Reckoning him as a known rowdy, Ext.P3 order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate (2nd respondent) on 31-3-2008. He was allegedly involved in three different cases, which were pending trial before two Courts. The order of detention was executed on 5-8-2009. Consequently the detenu continues to be under detention. Orders under Section 3(3) and Section 10(4) of the KAAPA have been passed/approving and confirming the detention.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Rajagopalan Nair and Sri K.K.Ravindranath, learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on various grounds. But, we are satisfied that it is ne