JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein to direct the production of her husband Unnikrishnan @ Thiruvallam Unni (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) who is detained in custody pursuant to an order passed under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (referred to as "KAAPA" for brevity). 2. The detenu was earlier placed under preventive detention by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram as per order dated 13.4.2015 and the said order was confirmed by the Advisory Board. Challenge against the said order of detention was repelled by this Court. He was released from custody after undergoing the full period of detention on 18.10.2015. 3. After the release of the detenu from custody, he got himself involved in seven crimes. The 3rd respondent submitted reports dated 21.3.2016, 12.4.2016 and 5.5.2016 before the 2nd respondent requesting that the detenu be classified as a "known rowdy" under Section 2 (p) of the KAAPA and he be detained under Section 3 thereof. The 2nd respondent considered the matter. Thereafter, he issued Ext.P1 order dated 6.5.2016 ordering to place the detenu under detention by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the KAAPA. The detention order was executed on 9.5.2016. The order was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA on 21.5.2016. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 25.5.2016 and on 25.6.2016, the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. It is in the above factual background that this Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order of detention and to set the detenu at liberty. 4. We have heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.S. Breez, the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced the following contentions to convince us that the detention order cannot be legally sustained. (a) The petitioner was in judicial custody when the order of detention was passed. As he was involved in numerous cases, the chances of the detenu being released on bail was very remote. This aspect was not taken note of by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. (a) The petitioner was in judicial custody when the order of detention was passed. As he was involved in numerous cases, the chances of the detenu being released on bail was very remote. This aspect was not taken note of by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. (b) A perusal of the records of the cases which were taken note of by the detaining authority to arrive at the required subjective satisfaction would reveal that he had no role to play in the commission of the offences. His name has not even been mentioned in the FIR. (c) The authorities have failed in their bounden duty to inform the detenu that he had the right to submit representation before the 1st respondent and also the Advisory Board. The said failure would vitiate the order of detention. (d) None of the documents relied on by the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention was supplied to the detenu. This would violate the constitutional safeguards and would make the order of detention suspect. (e) The petitioner had furnished a representation to the 1st respondent for and on behalf of the detenu and as per his instructions on 10.5.2016. As is evident from Exhibit P6, the fate of the representation was informed to the petitioner only on 30.5.2016. The long delay in disposing of the representation would render the detention invalid. (f) The detenu had submitted a representation addressed to the Chief Minister of Kerala through the 5th respondent with a request to forward it online on 30.8.2016. Till date, the detenu has not been informed about the fate of the said representation. 6. The learned Government pleader, referring to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, would support the order of detention and would highlight the fact that the petitioner is an inveterate criminal with not less than 40 Crimes to his credit. After having released from detention, the petitioner had indulged in anti social activities and in view of his antecedent activities which were clearly proximate, there was every reason to suspect that he would indulge in prejudicial activities. On the basis of the report submitted by the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority had carefully applied its mind and, after arriving at the requisite satisfaction, passed the order of detention. On the basis of the report submitted by the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority had carefully applied its mind and, after arriving at the requisite satisfaction, passed the order of detention. According to the learned Government Pleader, all the constitutional safeguards were complied with and the contentions advanced are merit less. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. 8. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, we find that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu had been released on bail in all cases in which he was involved except in one crime. The authority had also taken note of the report dated 5.5.2016 submitted by the sponsoring authority wherein it was mentioned that there was every likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the said case. It is by now settled that the detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. (See N. Meera Rani vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 1989 (4) SCC 418 and Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India, 1991 (1) SCC 128 ) the principles were set out as follows: Even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed: (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. 9. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. 9. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of release on bail. In that view of the matter, we hold that the first contention advanced by the petitioner is without merit. 10. We are not impressed with the contention that the petitioner had no role in the commission of the offence as his direct involvement is not made out. We find that the investigation in most of the cases were completed and final report had been laid before the jurisdictional Court. This Court in Safiya vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (1) KLT 7, had held that once the Investigating Officer has come to a conclusion that the accused person has committed an offence referred to in Clause (j) or Clause (t) of Section 2 of the KAAPA, as the case may be, and when that finding in the form of a final report is forwarded along with the information by the Police Officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police to the detaining authority under the Act, the detaining authority cannot look into the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials leading to the finding by the Police Officer regarding the commission of the offence. That is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. The detaining authority cannot and shall not appreciate the materials leading to the police report and come to a different finding or comment on the finding as to whether on the materials thus made available by the Police Officer a report under Section 173(2)(i)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the commission of offence could have been made or not. Same view was taken in Anithakumari vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (4) KLT 632 as well. 11. The 3rd contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the detenu was not informed of his right to submit representation before the 1st respondent and also the Advisory Board. We had called for the records and we find that the detenu was informed of his right to submit representation and he was also offered legal assistance of his choice. He has affixed his thumb impression after endorsing that he has been informed of his rights. We had called for the records and we find that the detenu was informed of his right to submit representation and he was also offered legal assistance of his choice. He has affixed his thumb impression after endorsing that he has been informed of his rights. Same is the case with the contention that he was not furnished with the records to enable him to submit a proper representation. The files would show that each and every document was supplied to the detenu and he has subscribed his own signature after accepting a copy of the record. 12. We shall now advert to the main contention advanced by the learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P4 representation to the 1st respondent for and on behalf of the detenu as instructed by him on 10.5.2016. It is clear from Exhibit P5 that the Government had received Ext.P4 on 11.5.2016. The said representation was disposed of by the Government by Exhibit P5 order dated 24.5.2016. The letter informing the petitioner of the disposal of the representation was despatched on 26.5.2016 and the same was received by the petitioner by post on 30.5.2016. According to the learned counsel, the long and undue delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and in disposing of the same will vitiate the order of detention. The learned counsel would rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India & Others, 1991 (1) SCC 476 to buttress his submissions. 13. The learned Government Pleader would, however, submit that Exhibit P4 is a representation submitted by the wife of the petitioner. It is borne out from the records that the said representation was disposed of on 24.5.2016 and the same was informed to the petitioner promptly. It is further argued that Exhibit P4, admittedly not having been submitted by the detenu himself, or his authorized representative or power of attorney holder, the same cannot be reckoned as a representation by the detenu made in exercise of the constitutional right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and the statutory right under section 7 of the KAAPA. Reliance is also placed on a Constitution bench decision of this Court in Vilasini Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KLT 209 to substantiate his contention. 14. Reliance is also placed on a Constitution bench decision of this Court in Vilasini Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KLT 209 to substantiate his contention. 14. There are a plethora of authorities which emphasises the need for considering the representation of the detenu as expeditiously as possible. The right of the detenu to make a representation and to have it considered expeditiously is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Any unreasonable or unexplainable delay in considering the representation would be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. 15. In K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B. L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India & Others, 1991 (1) SCC 476 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the requirement of considering the representation without delay and held as follows: "12. The representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Clause (5) of Article 22 therefore, casts a legal obligation on the Government to consider the representation as early as possible. It is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words "as soon as may be" occurring in Clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with. The requirement however, is that there should not be supine indifference slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re - emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re - emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. (See: Jayanarayan Sukul vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 675 ; Frances Coralie Mullin vs. W.C. Khambra, 1980 (2) SCC 275 ; Rama Dhondu Borade vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, 1989 (3) SCC 173 and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India, 1989 (3) SCC 277 )." 16. In Vinod K. Chawla vs. Union of India and Others, 2006 (7) SCC 337 while dealing with the question of delay in the matter of disposal of representation, the Supreme Court held thus: "13. The contention raised cannot be judged by any straight jacket formula divorced from facts. This has to be examined with reference to the facts of each case having regard to the volume and contents of the grounds of detention, the documents supplied along with the grounds, the inquiry to be made by the officers of different departments, the nature of the inquiry, the time required for examining the various pleas raised, the time required in recording the comments by the authorities of the department concerned and so on. 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, Exhibit P4 representation has been submitted by the wife of the petitioner. The question whether the representation submitted by any person other than the detenu himself can be reckoned as one made under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India or under Section 7 of the KAAPA was considered by this Court in Vilasini Manikantan (supra). This Court had occasion to observe as follows:- "19. We have no hesitation to agree that many others -- friends, relatives, human rights workers, political and social activists etc. may and can raise objections against the detention. Such objections raised/or representations made to the Government may justify invocation of the powers under S.13 of the KAAPA corresponding to S.11 of the COFEPOSA Act; but that is far from saying that such representations can be reckoned as representations contemplated under Art.22(5) of the Constitution and S.7 of the KAAPA. may and can raise objections against the detention. Such objections raised/or representations made to the Government may justify invocation of the powers under S.13 of the KAAPA corresponding to S.11 of the COFEPOSA Act; but that is far from saying that such representations can be reckoned as representations contemplated under Art.22(5) of the Constitution and S.7 of the KAAPA. Government's power for revocation may be exercised at the instance of not only the detenu but also others; but all such representations which people at large may be making against the detention cannot be reckoned as representations made in exercise of the constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the statutory right under S.7 of the KAAPA. In short, the representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution or under S.7 of the KAAPA can be made only by the detenu and not by any other. This is not to say that a counsel, a power of attorney holder or a relative, duly authorised, cannot make such a representation in the name of and on behalf of the detenu. But the representation must be in the name of and on behalf of the detenu specifically. All the various persons who have interest in the detenu and who have objections against the detention can independently make representations and all such representations can be considered by the Government and the authorities to decide whether the power for revocation conceded by statute can or ought to be invoked. But such representations cannot be elevated to the status of representations made by the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and S.7 of the KAAPA as to persuade the Court to invalidate the order of detention on the ground that such independent representations have not been considered or considered properly and expeditiously. To be reckoned as a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India or S.7 of the KAAPA, the representation must be one made in his name and on his behalf by himself or his authorised representatives. All other representatives made independently by others cannot claim that elevated status." 18. Admittedly, Exhibit P4 has not been submitted by the detenu. It does not reveal that the same was submitted by the petitioner on his behalf or as authorized by him. The representation was considered by the respondent and orders were passed on 24.5.2016. All other representatives made independently by others cannot claim that elevated status." 18. Admittedly, Exhibit P4 has not been submitted by the detenu. It does not reveal that the same was submitted by the petitioner on his behalf or as authorized by him. The representation was considered by the respondent and orders were passed on 24.5.2016. The same was sent by post and was received by the petitioner on 30.5.2016. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi (supra), Vinod K. Chawla (supra) and Vilasini Manikanta (supra) and in the facts and circumstances available in the present cases, we are of the view that there is no unexplainable delay in considering the representations by the Central Government. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention that the delay in disposing the representation has resulted in infringement of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to the detenu. 19. The next contention is that Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the petitioner on 30.8.2016 before the 5th respondent was not forwarded to the Chief Minister of the State for consideration of the same. It is borne out from the records that the detention order was executed on 9.5.2016 and he was incarcerated in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. The order of detention was approved on 21.5.2016 and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 25.5.2016. The Advisory Board has given its opinion on 23.6.2016 and the Government was directed to fix the period of detention in accordance with section 12 of the KAAPA as amended. The Government after examining the opinion of the Board and after considering the matter afresh confirmed the detention of the detenu under section 10 (4) of the KAAPA and ordered that the detenu be detained for a period of one year as per order dated 5.7.2016. Exhibit P7 representation has been submitted much after the confirmation of the detention order and the same has been addressed to the Chief Minister. Admittedly, the representation has been submitted after three months from the date of detention and after the detention was confirmed by the Government after receiving the opinion by the Advisory Board. Exhibit P7 representation has been submitted much after the confirmation of the detention order and the same has been addressed to the Chief Minister. Admittedly, the representation has been submitted after three months from the date of detention and after the detention was confirmed by the Government after receiving the opinion by the Advisory Board. Affording an opportunity of being heard is embedded in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, though it is available after passing of the detention order and before its confirmation as held in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Senthil Kumar, 1999 (2) SCC 646 . Having regard to the facts, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the order of detention is vitiated on this ground. 20. After having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and after testing the same with the statutory provisions and legal precedents, we are of the view that the challenge raised to the validity, legality and sustainability of the order of detention is liable to fail. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that this Writ Petition is merit less and the same is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the same.