Antony Dominic, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of Shajahan @ Kannan @ Shaji. In this writ petition, she is challenging Ext.P1 order of detention issued under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Shajahan, the detenu, was the accused in Crime Nos.1235/2010, 1273/2010, 1985/2012, 890/2009, 1232/2010, 1236/2010 and 147/2012 of Kottiyam Police Station. Among the above, Crime No.1237/2010 involves offences under the Indian Penal Code, whereas, rest of the cases involve offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Pointing out the involvement of the detenu in the above cases, the 3rd respondent submitted a report dated 22.12.2012 under Section 3(1) of the Act to the 2nd respondent requesting that the detenu be classified as a 'Known Goonda' as provided under Section 2(o) of the Act and that to prevent him from continuing his anti-social activities, he be detained under Section 3 of the Act. Subsequently, yet another report was made on 03.01.2013. Based on the above reports, the 2nd respondent initiated action and finally issued Ext.P1 order of detention dated 29.01.2013, classifying the detenu as a 'Known Goonda' under Section 2(o) of the Act and ordering his detention as provided under Section 3 (1) of the Act.

3. Accordingly, the detenu was arrested and is under detention since 03.05.2013. On the issuance of the order, the 2nd respondent reported the matter to the Government and the Government approved the order of detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act, by order dated 09.05.2013. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. Before the Advisory Board, the detenu was represented by a counsel and after affording an opportunity of being heard, the Advisory Board made its report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government issued order dated 16.07.2013 confirming the order of detention as provided under Section 10(4) of the Act. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of detention and the consequential steps taken.

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

5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there is non-compliance of Section 3 (3) of the Act. Section 3(3) of the Act provides that if an order of detention is passed by an officer authorised under Section 3 (2) of the Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government and the Director General of Police, together with a copy of the order and supporting records and that no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days, excluding public holidays, from the date of detention, unless, in the meantime, the order has been approved by the Government or by the Secretary, Home Department, if so authorised by the Government in this regard.

6. The learned counsel contended that insofar as this case is concerned, the 2nd respondent did not report the matter to the Government forthwith and that the report was made by him only on 07.05.2013 and that it was on that basis, the Government issued order dated 09.05.2013 approving Ext.P1 order of detention.

7. As already stated by us, Ext.P1 order of detention was issued on 29.01.2013 and in execution thereof, the detenu was detained on 03.05.2013. It is thereafter that approval under Section 3(3) was accorded by the Government on 09.05.2013. During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader made available letter No.M9-71731/2012 dated 29.01.2013 from the 2nd respondent addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, reporting about Ext.P1 order of detention and also enclosing the connected records for necessary action. From this communi