Basant, J.

Can an Additional District Magistrate pass an order under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA) even when he happens to be temporarily in charge of the office of the District Magistrate. This is the crucial question to be decided in this writ petition.

2. To the vitally relevant and skeletal facts first:

The petitioner is the wife of a detenu by name Ravikumar, against whom the 3rd respondent, Deputy Collector (General) and Additional District Magistrate in charge has passed the impugned order of detention Ext.P1 under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA. A report was submitted to the 2nd respondent, District Magistrate, by the 4th respondent District Superintendent of Police. That report under Section 3(1) is dated 11/6/2009 (signed on 13/6/2009) and a copy of the same is produced as Ext.P3. That report is addressed to the District Magistrate, Kollam, the 2nd respondent. Long later, we find the 3rd respondent – Deputy Collector (General) and Additional District Magistrate in charge of the office of the District Collector and District Magistrate proceeded to pass Ext.P1 order. The 2nd respondent, District Collector and District Magistrate, Kollam was temporarily absent from duty at the relevant time. During the period 27/6/2009 to 09/08/2009, the District Magistrate was not available to perform his duties and he had left Kollam on the afternoon of 26/6/2009 handing over charge to the 3rd respondent herein. It is stated that the charge was handed over by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent; but no documents are produced to prove such handing over of charge. The 3rd respondent, who thus started discharging duties as the District Magistrate in charge, had proceeded to pass the impugned order on 18/7/2009. The detenu was arrested on 30/7/2009. It is submitted that orders under Section 3(3) and 10(4) have all been passed subsequently.

3. Long later, by G.O (Rt) No.2777/2009/RD dated 10/08/2009, the Government had ratified the act of the 2nd respondent handing over charge to the 3rd respondent. The said order dated 10/08/2009 indicates that full additional charge had been handed over by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent before he left Kollam on 26/6/2009. The 2nd respondent had left Kollam for attending the third phase of Mid Career Training programme, MCT for I.A.S 2009 held at Mussoorie from 29/6/2009 to 21/08/2009.

4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General Prosecutions have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various contention to assail the impugned order of detention and the consequent detention; but we feel, in the view which we propose to take, that it is necessary to consider only the challenge raised on the first ground, that is "the 3rd respondent does not have the legal and jurisdictional competence to pass any order under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA."

5. The Ground: It will be necessary and apposite for this court at the very outset to survey the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 3(1) and 3(2) of KAAPA read as follows:

3. Power to make orders for detaining known Goondas and known Rowdies:-

(1) The Government or an officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any Known Goonda or Known Rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) If having regard to the circumstances prevailing, or likely to prevail in any area, the Government, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do, may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the said order, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may exercise the