K.M. Joseph, J. –

1. Petitioner seeks the following relief:

"Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to produce the detenue before this Honourable Court, to quash Exhibit P1 detention under which was approved and confirmed by the Government and set the detenue at liberty."

2. By Ext.P1 detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the husband of the petitioner stands detained under Section 3 of the Act. Four Crimes are referred to as the foundation for invoking Section 3 of the Act. They are Crime Nos.346/09, 437/10, 537/10 and 422/09, all of the Thekkumbhagam Police Station. All these cases fall under the Kerala Protection of River Banks And Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act).

3. We heard Shri C. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Shri K. J. Mohammed Anzar, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would address before us the following arguments:

He would submit that invocation of the powers under Section 3 of the Act is illegal for the reason that the very invocation of the Sand Act was without any legal basis and, therefore, the Act could not have been invoked, as the Act is intended for protection of river banks and in the cases, the allegation relates to removal of sand from the vicinity of lakes. Secondly, he would contend that this is a case where the detenu has been detained on the strength of criminal cases wherein he stands convicted in three out of four cases mentioned above and the conviction in all the three cases are ab initio void. This he would say, is for the reason that the conviction was obtained on the basis of a police report and not a complaint. He would rely on Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that the Judgments evidencing detenu's conviction are all void. This he would submit, on the strength of the decision of this Court in Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706) wherein this Court has taken the view that only a complaint can be filed, and that police report will not amount to a complaint. He would contend that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation. He would further submit that material documents were suppressed by the sponsoring authorities and that there is no real and proper consideration of the representation. Further, it is submitted that there is clear non-application of mind disclosed by the fact that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the fact that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken against the detenu and in this regard, he relied on the Judgment of this Court in Susi v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 760).

5. Per contra, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the contention that no action can be taken in respect of activities in and around lake which is otherwise offensive to the Act, cannot be countenanced. Secondly, it is his contention that in two of the cases, there were complaints. Thirdly, it is contended that it will not render the Judgments void. In this context, he relied on Section 365 of the Cr. P. C. He would further submit that there was no inordinate delay in disposing of the representation which was disposed of considering the grievances raised as required in law. As far as the contention that proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P. C. has not been considered, it is the case of the respondents that there were indeed proceedings under Section 107. and that they have been supplied to the detenu admittedly. They form part of the file and having regard to the phraseology of the order of detention, it must be understood that the detaining authority has actually considered the issue, it is submitted. Further more, it is pointed out by