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 necessary to advert only to two grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They are:

(1) The inordinate delay in executing the warrant must in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause lead to invalidation of the detention.

(2)There has been fatal delay on the part of the delegate District Magistrate in forwarding the report under Section 3 (3) of the KAAPA.

4. Ground No.1: The third respondent, a superior police officer submitted a report dated 22-12-2007 to the second respondent sponsoring the detention of the detenu under Section 3 of the KAAPA. On the basis of that report, Ext.P3 order of detention was passed by the second respondent on 31-3-2008. The detenu was detained on the ground that he is a known rowdy. Three cases relating to incidents which took place on 11-10-2002, 1-8-2004 and 3-4-2007 have been charge-sheeted and were pending against him before two different courts. After passing the order of detention dated 31-3-2008, the order was not executed till 5-8-2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this gap of about 16 months between the date of the order and the execution of the order of detention affects the validity of detention. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is absolutely no justifiable reasons for the delay in execution of the order of detention. It affects the alleged entertainment of the requisite satisfaction to detain the detenu and exposes the fact that there was no need at all to detain him.

5. The learned counsel points out that preventive detention must be distinguished from punitive detention. In a case of punitive detention the person, who deserves such detention, must necessarily undergo such detention/confinement whatever be the time at which he is arrested and detained. But so far as preventive detention is concerned, it is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The law of preventive detention has been described as the jurisprudence of suspicion. Anticipation about the probable contumacious conduct, which the detenu may indulge in future, of course, on the basis of the past events, is the foundation for an order of preventive detention. Under Section 12 of the KAAPA, the maximum period of detention permissible is six months. The foundation of an order of detention under Section 3 of the KAAPA is the perception of the possible contumacious conduct during the next six months from the date of passing the order. In these circumstances, the very foundation of the necessity for detention will be lost, if the authorities do not show eagerness to execute the warrant of arrest. Executing warrant of arrest beyond the period of six months is really unnecessary as the perception of the detaining authority is evidently the possibility of contumacious behaviour