Antony Dominic, J.

1. Petitioner is the mother of one Gopakumar @ Gopan. In this writ petition, she challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent under section 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', detaining Gopakumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu', for short).

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the detenu is an accused in Crime Nos.250/07, 115/11, 233/11, 2124/12 and 1098/12 at the Town North Police Station, Palakkad. He is also an accused in Cr.Nos.253/08, 309/13 and 267/13 of the Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad. Further, he is an accused in Cr.No.233/09 on the file of the Kalamassery Police Station in Ernakulam district. Referring to the involvement of the detenu in the above criminal cases, involving offences specified in section 2(t) of the Act, the third respondent submitted Ext.P3 report dated 26.6.2013 to the second respondent, enclosing Ext.P5, the order granting bail to the detenu in Cr.No.309/13 mentioned above. He also submitted Ext.P4 dated 12.7.2013, a further report, to the second respondent, enclosing Ext.P6, the order granting bail to the detenu in Cr.No.267/13. In these reports, the third respondent requested that steps be initiated for classifying the detenu as a 'Known Rowdy' as provided under section 2(p)(iii) of the Act and on that basis, to detain him under section 3, in order to prevent him from continuing his anti-social activities.

3. Based on the above materials submitted by the sponsoring authority, the second respondent, the detaining authority, passed Ext.P1 order dated 18.7.2013, classifying the detenu as a 'Known Rowdy' under section 2(p)(iii) of the Act and ordering his detention as provided in section 3(1). The Government of Kerala, in exercise of its powers under section 3(3) of the Act, approved the order of detention by order dated 31.7.2013. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 12.8.2013 and based on the report submitted by the Board, the Government, in compliance with section 10(4) of the Act, passed order dated 25.9.2013, confirming Ext.P1 order of detention. It is in this background, this writ petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu seeking to challenge Ext.P1 order and to set the detenu at liberty by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the detaining authority was guilty of non-application of mind. According to the learned counsel, along with Exts.P3 and P4 reports, the sponsoring authority, the third respondent, had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 orders granting the detenu bail in Cr.Nos.309/13 and 267/13, which are dated 1.6.2013 and 4.7.2013 respectively. Counsel contended that in these orders, stringent conditions were incorporated by the Sessions Court and that those conditions were sufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing antisocial activities. It is stated that it was without even adverting to this aspect or giving any consideration to the same that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order classifying the detenu as a 'Known Rowdy', as provided in section 2(p)(iii) of the Act and ordering his detention under section 3.

6. The second contention raised was that the detenu was not supplied all the materials relied on by the detaining authority while passing Ext.P1 order. The counsel contended that in Ext.P1, the detaining authority had relied on an earlier order of detention and the report then made by the Advisory Board, on the basis of which, the detention order was revoked. He also contended that in the detention order, the detaining authority has relied on the report of confidential investigation and police station records which were also not supplied to the detenu.

7. The third contention raised by the counsel was that the repre