K.T.Sankaran, J.

Ratheesh P.V. @ Manthi Ratheesh, son of the writ petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "KAAPA"), as per Ext.P1 order of detention dated 05.12.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Kasaragod. The petitioner was classified as a known rowdy in the order of detention. The order of detention was executed on 08.12.2015. Ext.P2 order of confirmation was passed by the Government on 02.02.2016. As per Ext.P2, the period of detention was fixed as one year from the date of detention of the detenu.

2. The order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the continued detention of the detenu is that as per the jail admission authorisation dated 0.5.12.2015 signed by the District Magistrate, Kasaragod and addressed to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Kannur, the latter was authorised to keep under detention the detenu for a period of six months from the date of arrest and, therefore, the detenu is liable to be released forthwith, he having undergone detention for more than six months.

4. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (ADGP) submitted that the jail admission authorisation is a communication from the District Magistrate, Kasaragode to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Kannur and it is not a document to be served on the detenu paripassu the order of detention. However, that document was also served on the detenu. Learned ADGP submitted that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to fix the period of detention either in the order of detention or while issuing the jail admission authorisation or thereafter. The jurisdiction to fix the period of detention is vested with the Government while confirming the order of detention under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA.

5. The order of detention under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA can be passed either by the Government or by the Officer authorised under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KAAPA. The District Magistrate is an Officer authorised under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KAAPA. If an order of detention is passed by an Officer so authorised, the mandate under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA is that no order of detention shall remain in force for more than 12 days excluding public holidays from the date of detention, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Government or by the Secretary, Home Department if generally so authorised in this regard by the Government. At the time when an order of detention is passed under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA, there is no requirement that the period of detention shall be fixed. In fact, the law does not authorise the detaining authority to fix the period of detention at the time when an order is passed under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA. The scheme of the KAAPA is that after the order of detention is executed and the person concerned is arrested in pursuance of the detention order, the Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned, place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been passed and the representation, if any, made by the person affected and in the case where the order has been passed by an authorised officer, the report by such officer under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the KAAPA. Section 10 of the KAAPA provides for the procedure of the Advisory Board and further action to be taken. The Advisory Board is bound to furnish its opinion within nine weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. 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. The power to confirm the order of detenti