K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext.P1 order of detention dated 13.4.2015 under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA'), to detain Unnikrishnan @ Thiruvallam Unni, the husband of the writ petitioner. It was alleged that the husband of the writ petitioner is a 'known rowdy' as defined in the KAAPA and with a view to prevent him from committing anti-social activities, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained.

2. The order of detention was executed on 19.4.2015. As per the order dated 20.6.2015, the Government confirmed the order of detention. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P1 order of detention and his continued detention.

3. Ext.P1 order of detention shows that the detenu was involved in eighteen crimes registered at various police stations. In all the crimes the common offence is either under Section 379 or under Section 380.

4. In Ext.P1 it is stated that the crimes which were described as Sl.Nos.12 and 14 to 18 were under investigation and, therefore, those cases were not considered for arriving at the subjective satisfaction and for passing an order of detention. This view taken by the detaining authority is clearly against the dictum laid down by this Court in two Division Bench decisions, namely, Beji v. State of Kerala, 2012 (3) KLT 255 and Elizebath George v. State of Kerala, 2008 (4) KLT 425. However, since the detaining authority had excluded these cases from the purview of consideration, it is not necessary to consider that aspect for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the detention order and the continued detention on three grounds: (1) Since the name of the detenu is not available in the FIRs registered in the cases considered for passing the preventive detention order, the detaining authority should have satisfied himself that there were materials to arrive at the conclusion that it was the detenu who committed the offence. (2) It is clear from Ext.P1 order of detention that the detenu was arrested in Crime No.748/2011 of Adoor Police Station and, while questioning, he disclosed about the commission of offence relating to three other crimes mentioned as item Nos. 1 to 3 in Ext.P1 order. Likewise, the disclosure made by the detenu in certain other cases were also referred to while registering some of the crimes mentioned in Ext.P1 order. The learned counsel submits that the disclosure statement in Crime No.748 of 2011 and in the other crimes in which similar disclosure statements were made by the detenu should have been made available by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority to found the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. These vital documents having not been placed before the detaining authority, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated and consequently, the order of detention is liable to be struck down. (3) The detenu has a right to make a representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. Section 7(2) of the KAAPA mandates that within five days of detention, the detenu shall be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this information in writing should be made available separately and a statement in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu that he would have a right to make a representation before the Government and the Advisory Board is not a substitute for satisfying the specific requirement of Section 7(2) of the KAAPA.

6. Point No.1: It is true that the name of the detenu is not mentioned in the First Information Statements in respect of the crimes referred to in Ext.P1 order. The cases registered against the detenu are cases eith