BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing Ext.P1 detention order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the third respondent invoking his power under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, KAAPA).

2. The petitioner is the first cousin of the detenu. The detenu was placed under preventive detention at the Central Prison, Kannur, by Ext.P1 order of detention passed by the third respondent, the District Magistrate. The third respondent has passed Ext.P1 exercising his powers under Section 3 of KAAPA. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the detenu was taken into custody on 25.11.2014 and admitted him to the Central Prison, Kannur. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Central Prison, Viyyur, and he is continuing under detention there. Ext.P1 order has been approved by the Government, the first respondent, as per order dated 4.12.2014. The Advisory Board sent a report dated 15.1.2015 finding that there was sufficient cause to detain the detenu. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued order dated 22.1.2015 confirming the order of detention and directing to continue the detention for six months from the date of detention. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of detention on various grounds in this Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri.Sojan Micheal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The District Police Chief, the fourth respondent, submitted Ext.P3 report dated 6.11.2014 before the third respondent requesting him to pass an order under Section 3 of KAAPA for detaining the detenu as he is a ‘known rowdy’ indulging himself in anti-social activities necessitating his detention. The third respondent, after considering Ext.P3, found the detenu to be a ‘known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2(p) of KAAPA. The third respondent, in Ext.P1 order of detention, relied on six criminal cases in which the detenu is involved. For disposing of this matter, the details of those cases are not necessary.

5. The detenu was ordered to be detained on an earlier occasion invoking the powers under Section 3 of KAAPA as per order dated 5.9.2013 of the third respondent. But, based on the report of the Advisory Board, that detention order was revoked by order dated 28.10.2013 and, accordingly, he was released from jail on 31.10.2013.

6. The petitioner has raised various contentions challenging Ext.P1 detention order. For the purpose of disposing of this Writ Petition, we need not go into all those contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu knows only Kannada. He does not know Malayalam. The grounds relied on by the third respondent while passing Ext.P1 order and all other documents supplied to the detenu were in Malayalam, a language not known to the detenu. When the earlier order of detention was passed by the third respondent, the copies of the relevant documents given to the detenu were also in Malayalam. In view of the fact that the documents supplied to the detenu were in Malayalam, the detenu was deprived of an opportunity to understand the contents of those documents enabling himself to effectively represent against the detention order. Moreover, it is a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that all the documents supplied to the detenu were in Malayalam. We have perused the relevant records and satisfied ourselves that the detenu made the endorsements, while receiving the documents, in Kannada. Moreover, the respondents could not point out any reason to believe that the detenu is a person knowing Malayalam. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu made a representation on the earlier occasion in Malayalam after receiving the documents in Malayalam. On this occasion also, after receiving the documents,