Basant, J.

How is the period of five days under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention)Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') to be computed?

Does the law oblige the Government to pass an order under Section 10(4) within the period of nine weeks stipulated under Section 10(1)? These questions are raised mainly in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner, mother of a detenu detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside detention of the detenu under Exhibit P1 order and to set him at liberty.

3. The alleged detenu Raju is allegedly involved in four crimes referred to in detail in Exhibit P1. Those crimes are committed in the year 2005, 2006, 2006 and 2008. The 4th of those crimes is pending investigation, whereas in crimes 1 to 3 investigation is complete and final reports have already been filed. The 4th respondent submitted a proposal for invocation of the powers of detention under Section 3(1) to the 3rd respondent and it is accordingly that the 3rd respondent passed Exhibit P1 order of detention dated 1.7.2009. On the basis of the said order dated 1.7.2009, the detenu was arrested and detained on 2.7.2009. He continues under detention from that date. All other documents were furnished to the detenue on the date of detention, i.e., on 2.7.2009. But,the order granting bail and memo of release in one of the crimes were furnished only on 7.7.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any representation before the Government or the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board submitted its report dated 27.8.2009 to the Government and the Government thereupon on 5.9.2009 passed orders under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA confirming the detention for a period of six months from the date of detention. That order was served on the detenu on 6.9.2009 and he continues in custody from that date. This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on 28.8.2009.

4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the following three grounds.

(1) Inasmuch as one crucial document was served on the detenu only on 7.7.2009, though he was detained from 2.7.2009, there is crucial infraction of the mandatory stipulations in Section 7(2) of the KAAPA.

(2) Inasmuch as the order under Section 10(4) has not been passed within nine weeks of the date of detention, there is vital infraction of the mandate under Section 10(4) read with Section 10(1) of the KAAPA.

(3) The original order of detention having not been served on the detenu and a copy of such order served on the detenu having been approved for issue by the Deputy Collector(General) who under the Statute is not authorised to issue such copies, there is breach of the mandate of Section 7(1) of the KAAPA.

5. Ground No.1: Under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA copies of relevant documents shall be furnished to the detenu "as soon as possible, nevertheless, in any case within five days of detention". The detention in this case was on 2.7.2009. All other documents were furnished earlier; but the last of those documents was furnished on 7.7.2009. Can the furnishing of the documents on 7.7.2009 be held to be within five days of detention? This is the short question to be considered.

6. We extract Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. It reads:

"7(2). The grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, as far as practicable, on the basis of which he is considered as a "known goonda" or "known rowdy" and giving such materials-relating to his activities on the basis of which his detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to him as soon as possible, nevertheless, in any case, within five days of detention and he shall also be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Governme