Basant, J.

What is the nature and quality of consideration which a representation made by a detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA') must receive at the hands of the Government? Does the failure to give a real and proper consideration by the Government vitiate continued detention? These questions arise mainly for consideration in this Writ Petition.

(2) In this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the wife of the detenu, assails Ext.P1 order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA against the detenu.

2. The petitioner is the wife of K.Ravi, the detenu. The detenu was involved in as many as 5 cases; the details of which are given below:

Table

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kasargod, by his report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA dated 23.01.09 [copy produced as Ext.R2(g)], submitted a proposal to the 2nd respondent (District Magistrate) to invoke the powers under Section 3(i) of the KAAPA to detain the detenu. Accepting the report of the sponsoring authority, Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 16.02.2009. The order could not be executed for some time. Finally in execution of Ext.P1 order, the detenu was arrested and detained on 02.07.2009. Copies of the order and grounds were furnished to the detenu in due time and the detenu submitted Ext.R2(m) representation dated 08.07.09 to the Government. That representation submitted through the prison authorities was received by the prison authorities on 08.07.09 and it was forwarded to the Government. The Government allegedly received the same on 13.07.09. In the meantime, Ext.P5 order of approval dated 10.07.09 was passed by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA. After receipt of Ext.R2(m) representation, the Government, by Ext.P8 order dated 17.07.09, rejected the said representation. In accordance with the provisions of the KAAPA, the Advisory Board considered the matter and opined to the Government that there was sufficient reason to justify detention. Accordingly Ext.R1(a) order dated 26.08.09 was passed by the Government confirming the order of detention under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA. Accordingly the detenu will have to remain in custody for a period of 6 months from 02.07.09. It is at this juncture that we are called upon to consider the request of the petitioner, the wife of the detenu to set aside the order of detention and to set the detenu at liberty.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order and the continued detention on the following:

Grounds

I) 2 of the 5 cases referred above should not at all have been reckoned as relevant to decide whether the detenu is a known goonda or a known rowdy.

II) The remaining 3 cases also do not bring the detenu within the sweep of the expression "known goonda/known rowdy" inasmuch as there is no allegation therein of the detenu having been involved in any organised crime affecting public order.

III) The alleged contumacious acts even if true could not have instilled the latter subjective satisfaction under Section 3 of the KAAPA in the mind of the authorities that there was any threat to public order.

IV) There has been no proper application of mind by the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority before passing Ext.P1 order.

V) The Government before passing the order of approval under Section 3(3) had not applied its mind properly and correctly.

VI) The valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the KAAPA to get his representation Ext.R2(m) considered properly by the Government has been violated by the Government in passing Ext.P8 order. Ground No.I

5. The objection is raised regarding case N