Point of Law: There was a delay of five days in sending detention order to Government, which was not mentioned or explained in final order of State Government.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The identical petitioner seeks release of her husband and his brother, in the respective writ petitions, from preventive detention. The detenues have been detained under separate orders by reason of the criminal activities indulged in by them. We dispose of the writ petitions by this common judgment, since the contentions raised against the detention order are almost identical.

2. Sri. Hanis M.H. learned Counsel appearing in W.P. (Crl.) No. 516 of 2022 is concerned with the detention of the petitioner's husband, who was taken into custody on 23.02.2022. It is argued that there are no documents to evidence compliance of sub-section (2) of S.7 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act [for brevity ‘KAA(P)A’]. The contention is that there is no information in writing, under acknowledgment, of the right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against the detention. The last prejudicial activity was on 20.10.2021 and there is a delay of more than four months in passing the detention order. It is further argued that the detention order, immediately on its making, was not supplied to the Government, which as per S.3(3) has to be done 'forthwith'. The final order was passed on 15.05.2022 with gross delay. There is no final report filed in the last crime alleged against the detenue and hence it cannot be said that there is any finding in an investigation or enquiry by a competent Police Officer to bring him under S.2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P)A. The Detaining Authority has not applied its mind or considered Ext.P3 bail order; the conditions in which have been scrupulously complied with by the detenue. It is alleged that there is no supply of legible copies of the documents relating to the last crime, nor has the proceedings under S.107 Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenue, communicated to the Detaining Authority.

3. Sri. C. Rajendaran, learned Counsel appearing in W.P. (Crl.) No. 531/2022 is concerned with the preventive detention of the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The two grounds raised against the subject detention are also with respect to there being no 'forthwith' transmission of the order of detention to the Government and the S.107 proceedings under the Cr.P.C. having not been considered.

4. Sri. Anas, the learned Government Pleader appearing for State seeks to sustain both the orders passed by the Detaining Authority. The learned Government Pleader points out that both the detenues are habitual criminals and they fall under the definition of ‘known rowdy’ under the KAA(P)A. With respect to the contention regarding non-filing of final report, reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision in Stenny Aleyamma Saju vs. State of Kerala, 2017 (3) KHC 517. It is submitted that though the last prejudicial act was on 21.10.2021, the accused was arrested on 24.10.2021. The accused remained in judicial custody till he was granted bail on 19.11.2021. The delay, according to the learned Government Pleader, has been explained in the impugned order itself, which is by reason of the additional report called for by the Detaining Authority. As for the information supplied in writing, the file was produced before us, which clearly indicates the written communication of the Prison Official, which has been acknowledged by the detenue. It is pointed out that the Government received the report of the Advisory Board on 22.04.2022 and the final order was passed on 15.05.2022 without any delay. As far as the forthwith communication mandated under S.3(3), reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported on Arifa Beevi vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KLT 155 and Hetchin Haokip vs. State of Manipur, (2018) 9 SCC 562.

5. In the first of the above two cases, wherein the petitioner is concerned with her husband, the detention order, Ext.P1, is dated 21.02.2022 and the detention was effected on 23.02.2022. The last prejudicial activity as seen from the order is on 20.10.2021 regar