K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioner is the father of one Shri Praveen, who has been detained under the Provisions of The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Two grounds alone are raised before us.

2. Firstly, it is contended by Shri R. Bindu Sasthamangalam that the link has been snapped by reason of the fact that while the order of detention (Ext.P4) is dated 17.09.2008, the detenu was arrested only on 1.10.2009. He would submit that the detenu far from absconding, was appearing in various cases, in fact, referred to in the order of detention. Secondly, he would contend that there is transgression of mandate of Section 3(3) of the Act. He expands by contending that when an order is made under Section 3 of the Act by the Authorized Officer under Sub-section (2), he shall forthwith forward the fact to the Government and the Director General of Police, with a copy of the order and supporting records. In this case, it is pointed out that the order of detention and the records were forwarded only after the arrest. In this regard, he relies on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Soja Beegum v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others (2009 (4) KHC 909).

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would, on the other hand, submit that there is no violation of Section 3(3) of the Act. He would submit that the order of approval need be passed only after the arrest. He would further contend that in the facts of this case, the link has not snapped by reason of the arrest being done only on 01.10.2009. In this connection, he would point out the steps which have been taken and the reasons why the arrest could not be effected earlier.

4. Since we feel that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first point, we do not think it necessary to delve into the question whether there is a transgression of Section 3(3) of the Act and what is the effect of the breach of Section 3(3).

5. Admittedly, the order of detention was passed on 17.9.2008. It is not disputed either that the detenu was actually detained only on 1.10.2009. Petitioner has produced Exts.P1 to P3. They are Order Sheets in respect of cases relating to the crimes which are mentioned in the order of detention. Going by Ext.P1 order sheet in C.C.No.596/03 relating to Crime No.283/03, the detenu had appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 28.10.2008 and on 3.7.2009. Still further, going by Ext.P2 order sheet in C.C. No.311/08 which is relatable to Crime No.152/08 referred to in the order of detention, the detenu was present on 13.5.2009. No doubt, it is stated that the case was advanced on the said date (13.5.2009). Still further, Ext.P3 is the order sheet relating to C.C.No.199/06 which is relatable to Crime No.356/05, which is referred to in Ext.P4 order of detention (C.C.No.199/06 was refiled as C.C.No.292/08). Ext.P3 would show that the detenu had surrendered on 12.3.2009. Thereafter, he was present before the Court on 23.4.2009, 8.6.2009 and on 24.7.2009. Despite the detenu appearing on the aforesaid dates, admittedly the arrest was effected only on 1.10.2009, ie. After more than one year of the order of detention.

6. Learned Government Pleader made an attempt to convince us that there was no inordinate delay. It is pointed out that the detenu was absconding. It is further pointed out that the second respondent informed the third respondent vide letter dated 28.4.2009 and requested to initiate action against the detenu under Section 6(2) of the Act, for the application of the provisions of Sections 82 to 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated further in the Counter Affidavit that the third respondent in compliance with the stipulations in Section 6 (1)(a) of the Act, reported the matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and proclamatio