Basant, J.

1) Does revocation of a detention order under Section 10(4) fall within the sweep of Section 13(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA')?

2) Does Section 13(2) (i) of the KAAPA override the requirements of Section 3(1) of the KAAPA and is it independent of the stipulations of Section 3(1) of the KAAPA?

These are the questions of law coming up for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Syamkumar, who has been detained under Section 3(1) read with Section 13(2) of the KAAPA. A synoptic resume of the events which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention (i.e.Ext.P1) appears to be vital and necessary.

3. The detenu was involved in four criminal cases, the details of which are given below:

Table

erred in assuming that Section 13(2) of the KAAPA granted a power to detain without strict compliance with the provisions of Section 3 of the KAAPA.

2) Revocation under Section 10(4) cannot be reckoned as revocation under Section 13

(1) and consequently it must be held that the provisions of Section 13(2) have no application to an order of revocation under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA.

3) When revocation under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA is consequent to the opinion of the Advisory Board, no fresh order of detention can be passed relying on the same grounds wholly or by placing reliance on the same in part.

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

5) Ext.P1 order is bad for the reason that copies of relevant documents have not been furnished as mandated by Section 7(2) of the KAAPA and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

7. Ground No.1. It will be apposite straight away to take note of the relevant statutory stipulations. Section 10(4) of the KAAPA deals with revocation of an order of detention consequent to the opinion of the Advisory Board. It reads as follows:

"10(4) In every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of a person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith". (emphasis supplied)

8. Section 13(1) of the KAAPA deals with the power to revoke an order of detention and Section 13 (2) deals with the circumstances under which revocation of an earlier order of detention shall not bar issuance of another order of detention. It reads as follows:

"13. Revocation of detention order-

(1) A detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government.

(2) The revocation or expiry of detention order shall not be a bar for the issuance of another detention order under Section 3 against the same person, if he continues to be a person falling within the definition of known rowdy or known goonda as given in Section 2(o) or Section 2(p) and if, -(i) after release, he is found to have, again involved in an offence of the nature described in Section 2 (o) or Section 2(p) at least in one instance; or (ii) the facts, which came to the notice of the Government or the authorised officer after the issuance of the earlier detention order, considered along with previously known facts are sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to indulge in or promote or abet anti-social activities; or (iii) the procedural errors or omissions, by reason of which the first order was revoked, are rectified in the procedure followed with regard to the subsequent order, even if the subsequent order is based on the very same facts as the first order."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends first of all that the sponsoring and detaini