Antony Dominic, J.

The detention of one 'Pranav' under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Facts of the case are that the 'Pranav' (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') is an accused in eight criminal cases of Anchalumoodu Police Station. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, an officer competent under Section 3(1) of the Act, submitted Ext.P5 report dated 30.11.2012 to the 2nd respondent, the detaining authority. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent made further reports dated 22.1.2013 and 8.2.2013. On that basis, on 16.2.2013, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P1, ordering the detention of the detenu.

3. Accordingly, the detenu was arrested on 26.2.2013. By Ext.P24 order dated 7.3.2013, the Government approved the detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, on 12.3.2013, the Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board as provided under Section 9 of the Act and the Advisory Board heard the detenu on 21.3.2013 when the detenu submitted a representation to the Board. After considering the matter and hearing the detenu, the Advisory Board submitted its report under Section 10(1) of the Act with its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. On that basis, the Government passed order dated 5.4.2013 confirming the detention as provided in Section 10(4) of the Act.

4. In the meanwhile, on 2.4.2013, the detenu submitted a representation to the jail authorities and the jail authorities forwarded the representation to the Government under cover of their letter dated 2.4.2013 and the Government received the representation on 9.4.2013. That representation was considered and was rejected by the Government by its order dated 11.4.2013. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner, who claims to be a friend of the detenu, has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P1 and to set the detenu at liberty by issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the offences allegedly committed by the detenu are those affecting "public order" to be relied on to order detention of the detenu and that if at all the detenu is to be prevented from continuing any anti-social activities, the proceedings under the ordinary laws of the land would have been sufficient. According to him, the grounds relied on in Ext.P1 order are extraneous, invalid and vague. He also argued that Ext.P1 order of detention was not approved by the Government within the time specified in Section 3(3) of the Act and that there was delay in forwarding the representation submitted by him on 2.4.2013 to the Government. He contended that the representation was not properly considered, that the order if any passed on his representation, was not served on him and that all the documents relied on by the detaining authority were not served on the detenu. According to him, there was a long gap between the last prejudicial act and the detention order, as a result the link between the two has been snapped, rendering the detention unconstitutional and illegal.

6. Referring to the counter affidavit filed and the relevant files, the learned Government Pleader contradicted each of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and according to her, the order of detention is validly passed in compliance with all statutory formalities prescribed under the Act.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

8. The first contention raised is that the offences allegedly committed by the detenu were not those affecting "public order" and therefore could not have been relied on to order his detention. Insofar as this case concerned, the detenu is an accused in eight criminal cases of the Anchalumoodu Police Station, Kollam District. However, in Ext.P1 order of detention, Crime Nos.994/2010, 799/2011, 1289/11 and