Pursuant to order No. 01/2015 dated 22.05.2015, petitioner has been detained for having been indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

According to the learned Additional Advocate General detention order has been confirmed, the period of detention at the first instance has been fixed as three months, which has expired on 22.07.2015, but was extended for a period of three months which also expired on 22.11.2015. Then again it has been extended for further period of three months which too has expired on 18.02.2016. But before its expiry, the Government has issued one more order dated 16.02.2016 whereunder the order of detention has been extended for a further period of three months, which is to expire on 18.05.2016.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the frequent extensions of period of detention are arbitrary. No new position is forthcoming from the records, which would demonstrate that the respondents were persuaded to extend the period of detention. Buttressing the submission, submitted that, in fact, the material which was considered at the time of initial order dated 22.05.2015, has been again referred and considered