K.T Sankaran. J.

1. The questions which arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are:

(i) Whether it is necessary to mention in the order under Section 10(4) confirming the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act that the order of detention was read over to the detenu at the time of arrest?

(ii) Whether it is necessary that there should be at least one case initiated by persons other than police officers to consider a person as a known goonda even if there are sufficient number of cases covered by Section 2(o), but all of which were initiated by police officers?

2. Santhosh, the husband of the petitioner, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA), pursuant to Exhibit P2 order of detention dated 29.3.2014. Santhosh was arrested on 1.4.2014. The order was approved under Section 3(3) of KAAPA on 9.4.2014. The order was confirmed under Section 10 (4) of the Act as per Exhibit P3 order dated 5.6.2014.

3. In Exhibit P2 order of detention, five cases registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the detenu were taken into account for arriving at the satisfaction that he is a known goonda. At the time of arrest on 1.4.2014, admittedly the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu. The case of the petitioner is that there was no proper compliance of Section 7(1) of the KAAPA. Section 7(1) says that when a person is arrested in pursuance of a detention order, the officer arresting him shall read out the detention order to him and give him a copy of such order. According to the petitioner, the order of detention was not read over to the detenu. This contention is denied in the counter affidavit. It is specifically contended that the order of detention was read over to the detenu at the time of arrest. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution placed before us the files which would show that the detenu endorsed on the files that the order of detention was read over to him at the time of arrest. He has also signed and endorsed that he received the copies of the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. There is no ground to believe that the order of detention was not read over to the detenu at the time of his arrest. The official acts shall be deemed to have been performed in a proper and legal manner unless it is shown otherwise.

4. Sri. Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of confirmation under Section 10(4) of KAAPA did not mention that the order of detention was read over to the detenu. There is no such legal requirement that the order of confirmation should specifically state so. Section 10(4) of the KAAPA provides that in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. In the order of confirmation, the Government need not mention that all the steps which were legally required to be taken at the time of arrest and thereafter were taken. The order of confirmation is one which should be passed on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. If the Advisory Board gives the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for detention, the order of detention shall be revoked forthwith. If the opinion of the Advisory Board is that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned, the Government may confirm the order of detention and continue the detention of the person concerned. Even after the Advisory Board opines that there is sufficient ground for detention, the Government have the power to revoke the order of detention at any time under Section 13 of the Act. In an order of such a