V. Shircy, J.

1. The petitioner who is the father of one Mujeeb @ Veeta Mujeeb detained in Central Prison, Viyyur as a ‘Known Rowdy’ as per an order passed by the District Magistrate (for short ‘detaining authority’) under Section 3 (1)r/w 13(2) (I) & (ii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAAPA’ in short) seeks to quash the order by filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of HABEAS CORPUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to produce the detenu before this Honourable Court, to quash Exhibit.P1 Detention Order which was approved and confirmed by the Government and to set the detenue at liberty.

(ii) To grant such other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the interest of justice.

2. The District Magistrate who is the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P1 preventive detention order dated 14.11.2016 under Section 3 r/w 13( 2) (i) (ii) of KAAPA on the report of the Superintendent of Police, the 3rd respondent, and forwarded the same to the 4th respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, who executed the detention order on 22.11.2016. The detenu was in judicial custody in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram in four criminal cases allegedly committed by him. After execution of the detention order, the detenu was transferred to Central Prison, Viyyur and presently he is undergoing detention in Central Prison, Viyyur in Thrissur District. Ext.P1 order was approved by the 1st respondent Government as per Ext.P12 order dated 01/02.12.2016 under Section 3(3) of KAAPA. The Government confirmed the detention order as per Ext.P13 on 06.01.2017. The detenu preferred Ext.P14 representation on 18.5.2017, but it was dismissed. Assailing the impugned order, the petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, has preferred this petition.

3. We heard Sri C. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.A. Anas, the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. The denetu is involved in as many as six crimes. The detaining authority has reckoned these six cases for issuing the detention order. The detenu is placed under preventive detention from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order on the basis of the grounds mentioned in Ext.P1 order. The details of the cases mentioned in Ext.P1 are as follows:

Sl. No	Police Station and Crime No.	Date and Time	Offences	Stage
1	Kayamkulam, 237/2012	16/02/2012 at 00.50 AM	Ss.323, 324, 308 IPC	Final Report submitted
2	Kayamkulam 1005/2012	12/07/2012 at 10.15 PM	308,341 IPC and S.27 Arms Act	Final Report Submitted
3	Kayamkulam, 2174/2016	07/08/2016 at 06.30 PM	323, 324, 341, 506(ii) S.5 and 27 of Arms Act	Pending Investigation
4	Kayamkulam, 2175/2016	07/08/2016 at 11.00 PM	427, 294(A), 308, 506 and S.5 and 27 of Arms Act.	Pending Investigation
5	Kayamkulam, 2185/2016	07/08/2016 at 09.30 PM	308, 34, S.5 and 27 of Arms Act	Pending Investigation
6	Kayamkulam, 2342/2016	07/08/2016 at 07.00 PM	5, 27 of Arms Act	Pending Investigation

5. Out of the six cases, Crime No.237/2012 and 1005/2012 of Kayamkulam Police Station are pending for trial and investigation is in progress in Crime Nos. 2174/2016, 2165/2016, 2185/2016 and 2342/2016 of Kayamkulam Police Station. In these crimes apart from the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the offences relate to Arms Act also.

6. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order, its approval and confirmation as quite arbitrary, illegal and unjust. Thoug