K.T. Sankaran, J.

Ajayakumar @ Kannan, the son of the petitioner, was detained as per the order No.H7-17422/2015 dated 7.4.2015, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'). The order of detention was executed on 9.4.2015. The detenu was classified as a "known rowdy" in the order of detention. It is stated that he was involved in three crimes. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him. It is stated that the detenu committed the last crime during the currency of the period of the bond executed by him. The order of detention was confirmed as per Ext.P11 order dated 11.6.2015. The period of detention is six months, as per Ext.P11. The order of detention as well as the continued detention are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. Various points were raised in the Writ Petition. It is not necessary to refer to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of all the grounds, since we are of the view that the continued detention of the detenu should be held illegal on one of the grounds which is discussed below.

3. The detenu submitted Ext.P9 representation dated nil to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance. Ext.P9 was handed over to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, where the detenu is detained. The original file would show that the Superintendent (in charge) of the Central Prison, Viyyur countersigned the said representation. But no date is seen mentioned as to when Ext.P9 representation was received by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur. The office seal of the Central Prison is also not seen placed. However, the seal of the Superintendent is seen affixed on the representation but without any date. Ext.P9 representation was disposed of by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), as per Ext.P10 order dated 13.5.2015. In Ext.P10, reference No.2 is the letter dated 5.5.2015 of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, with respect to Ext.P9 representation. In Ext.P10, it is stated that Ext.P9 representation was received by the Government on 12.5.2015. On a perusal of the original records, it is seen that there is no seal or date of the office of the Additional Chief Secretary on the original of Ext.P9 representation. In other words, the original of Ext.P9 representation does not indicate when the Government received the said representation. The original records do not also contain the cover or any other detail which would indicate the date of receipt of Ext.P9 representation by the Government.

4. In paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the detenu submitted Ext.P9 representation to the fifth respondent (Superintendent, Central Prison, Viyyur) for forwarding the same to the Government. That representation was disposed of as per Ext.P10 order dated 13.5.2015. In paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that Ext.P10 order was communicated to the detenu only on 20.5.2015 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that Ext.P9 representation was received by the first respondent on 12.5.2015 and, without delay, it was disposed of as per Ext.P10 order dated 13.5.2015. However, the contention raised in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition that the detenu received Ext.P10 order only on 20.5.2015 is not seen denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent or that filed by the third respondent, probably because the authority to say about the same is the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. In other words, there is no denial of the averment in the Writ Petition that Ext.P10 order was communicated to the detenu only on 20.5.2015. If so, so far as the detenu is concerned, he got information about the rejection of the representation only on 20.5.2015.

5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, evidently there is unexplained delay in dis