Basant, J.

This application has been filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the production of and direct the release of her husband Mujeeb Rehman @ Vetta Mujeeb (hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’) who stands preventively detained by Ext.P1 order dated 20/5/10 passed under Sec.3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAAPA’) by the 2nd respondent – the District Magistrate.

2. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report (Ext.P12) under Sec.3(1) of the KAAPA submitted by the 3rd respondent – Superintendent of Police to the 2nd respondent – District Magistrate. In execution of the impugned order of detention – Ext.P1 dated 20/5/10, the detenu was arrested/detained with effect from 24/5/10. Order of approval under Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA and order of confirmation under Sec.10(4) of the KAAPA (Ext.P11) have already been passed. The detenu will have to continue in custody till 24/11/10.

3. There was an earlier order of detention under Sec.3 of the KAAPA passed by the 2nd respondent. That order – Ext.P4 is dated 31/10/09. The detenu was taken into custody in execution of Ext.P4 order on 7/11/09. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board did not authorize further detention. Accordingly, vide Ext.P6 order dated 11/1/10 passed under Sec.10(4) of the KAAPA, the detenu was released from custody.

4. According to the sponsoring and the detaining authorities, the detenu was subsequently involved in the commission of crimes and it is, in these circumstances, that Ext.P12 report was submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P1 order of detention under Sec.3 of the KAAPA.

5. The detenu is classified as a ‘known rowdy’. Seven cases are relied on by the sponsoring and detaining authorities. The details of the cases are given below:

Sl.No. Crime No. & Police Station Date of the offence Sections of offences Stage of the proceedings 1 2 3 4 5

1 Crime No.728/06 of Kayamkulam Police Station 26/12/06 U/s.143, 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 IPC Charge sheet filed

2 Crime No.149/07 of Kayamkulam Police Station 09/03/07 U/s. 392, 34 & 411 IPC Charge sheet filed

3 Crime No.571/07 of Kayamkulam Police Station 11/08/07 U/s. 365, 396, 302, 201, 115 & 120B IPC Charge sheet filed

4 Crime No.300/09 of Kayamkulam Police Station 11/04/09 U/s. 452 & 323 IPC Charge sheet filed

5 Crime No.328/09 of Kayamkulam Police Station 22/4/09 U/s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 450, 294(b), 224, 506(ii), 307 IPC R/w 27 of the Arms Act and 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Charge sheet not filed

6 Crime No.165/10 of Haripad Police Station 02/03/10 U/s 341, 294(b), 324, 308, 34 IPC & Sec.27 of the Arms Act Charge sheet not filed

Crime No.339/10 of Kayamkulam Police Station 18/3/10 U/s. 323, 451, 506(i) R/w 34 IPC Charge sheet not filed

6. It will be apposite straightaway to note that three of the seven cases (Sl.Nos.1 to 3) were specifically referred to in Ext.P4 order. It is also relevant to note that two of these cases (Sl.Nos.4 and 5) relate to incidents which had taken place prior to Ext.P4 order dated 31/10/09. The incidents in those two cases occurred on 11/4/09 and 22/4/09. The remaining two cases (Sl.Nos.6 and 7) took place after Ext.P4 order of detention and Ext.P6 order of release. In short, subsequent to the release under Ext.P6 order, Sl.Nos.6 and 7 were allegedly committed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the following grounds:

(1) There is significant non-application of mind to relevant facts before passing Ext.P1 order and that vitiates the order of detention.

(2) There is gross violation of the mandate of Sec.7(1) of the KAAPA inasmuch as copy of the order of detention was not furnished to the detenu at the time of arrest.

(3) There is violation of the mandate of