K.T. Sankaran, J.

Suresh @ Kalpana Suresh @ Vettu Suresh was detained as per Ext.P1 order (No.CC46/S13/Camp/15 dated 16.5.2015) issued by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA'). The order of detention was executed on 19.5.2015. The detenu is classified as a 'known rowdy' in Ext.P1 order. The order of detention was confirmed by the Government on 23.7.2015 and the period of detention was fixed as one year.

2. An order of detention dated 15.6.2007 was issued against the detenu, which was executed on 17.6.2007. The period of detention was six months. The detenu completed the term of six months in jail and he was released on 16.12.2007.

3. Alleging that the detenu involved himself again in criminal activities, a second order of detention dated 11.11.2011 was passed and it was executed on 23.11.2011. The period of detention was six months. The present order of detention (Ext.P1) was issued on the ground that the detenu indulged in criminal activities again and criminal cases were registered against him. In Ext.P1 order of detention it is stated that the period of detention as per the second order of detention dated 11.11.2011 was over on 22.5.2012 and the detenu suffered the full term covered by the second order of detention.

4. Ext.P1 order of detention as well as the continued detention are under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the wife of the detenu. Various grounds have been raised in the Writ Petition challenging the order of detention and the continued detention.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second order of detention dated 11.11.2011 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No.18 of 2012 and this Court allowed that Writ Petition by the judgment dated 14.2.2012 on the ground that one of the documents which was relied upon was not furnished to the detenu. It is submitted that the detenu was released from jail pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(Crl) No.18 of 2012 and he did not suffer the full term of detention under the second order of detention. In paragraph 6 of the statement of facts in the Writ Petition as well as in ground (Q), the petitioner has raised the aforesaid contention and challenged the order of detention. Paragraph 6 and ground (Q) are extracted below:

"6. The detainee challenged the 2nd detention order before this Hon'ble court in the Writ Petition No.18/2012. This Honourable court set aside the 2nd detention order and set the detainee at free by the judgment dated 14/2/2012. This is against the fact. This shows that the sponsoring and detaining authorities are not aware of setting aside of the 2nd detention order. These authorities are not up-to-date as to the real state of affairs at the issuance of the detention order."

"(Q) It is humbly submitted that there is non-application of mind on the sponsoring, detaining and 1st respondent in maintaining the detention order."

6. The aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is not answered in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent (District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram), it is stated as follows:

"13. The allegation and contention in paragraph 6 and 7 of the writ petition (Crl) is lack of any merits. It was reported by the sponsoring authority while furnishing the report for detention stated therein that the 2nd detention order issued in 2011 was completed the full term of 6 months and released thereafter. In the report it is stated that the 2nd detention order was confirmed by the Government vide G.O.(Rt) 409/2012/Home dated 13.02.2012. The order of Hon'ble Court if any had not been produced before this authority. Hence this authority was fully convinced that the term of detention was completed in the 2nd detention and hence the order was issued invoking the provision in section 13(2)(i) of KAAPA."

7. The