JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in relation to the challenge against the detention under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short) are as follows : “i. call for the records leading to Exts.P1 quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Shabeek @ Shafeek @ Bava, aged 38 years, S/o. Shahul Hameed, Thirunalvelikaran House, Puliparakunnu Desom, Kodakara Village, Thrissur, PIN, the son of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. and iii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).” 2. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu in this case (Shabeek @ Shafeek @ Bava, aged 38 years). The 3rd respondent -District Police Chief, as the sponsoring authority, has submitted reports dated 4.6.2022, 26.6.2022 and 6.7.2022 to the 2nd respondent – District Collector (authorized detaining authority) stating that, in view of the facts detailed therein, it is a fit case to enable the 2nd respondent to pass orders, under Sec.3(1) of the above Act, so as to detain the detenu, in order to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities, as conceived in Sec.2(a) of the Act. The 2nd respondent has, thereupon, issued the impugned Ext.P-1 detention order, dated 19.7.2022, ordering that the said authority is satisfied that, an order should be issued so as to detain the detenu, under Sec.3(1) of the Act, in order to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities. According to the respondents, Ext.P-1 detention order has been forthwith communicated to the 1st respondent -State Government along with all the relevant records. The necessary proposal for approval of the detention order was also made and thereupon, the 1st respondent -State Government has approved Ext.P-1 detention order, on 2.8.2022, in terms of Sec.3(3) of the Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P-1 detention order has been forthwith communicated to the 1st respondent -State Government along with all the relevant records. The necessary proposal for approval of the detention order was also made and thereupon, the 1st respondent -State Government has approved Ext.P-1 detention order, on 2.8.2022, in terms of Sec.3(3) of the Act. It is thereafter that the 1st respondent -State Government has referred the matter for considered opinion of the statutory Advisory Board on 5.8.2022. The Advisory Board has given its report on 16.9.2022, informing the Government that there is sufficient cause for the issuance of Ext.P-1 detention order, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent -State Government has issued order, as per G.O.(Rt.) No. 2689/2022/HOME dated 29.9.2022, confirming Ext.P-1 detention order. 4. The detenu is said to have been involved as accused in about 45 crimes since the year 2008, but the 2nd respondent has reckoned only 5 crimes during the relevant 7 year prior period, for the purpose of the issuance of Ext.P-1 detention order. The details of the said 5 crimes are given in Ext.P-1 detention order as well as in para 6 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent -State Government filed in this case (pages 5 to 7). There are no disputes regarding the factual correctness of the allegations pertaining to these 5 crimes and therefore, the details need not be reiterated. So also, there are no disputes in this case that, going by the those 5 crimes, the detenu would satisfy the definitional parameters of 'Known Rowdy' as per Sec. 2(p) (iii) read with Sec.2 (t) of the Act. 5. Sri. M.H. Hanis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised only one ground in aid of his plea that, the impugned Ext.P-1 proceedings should be interdicted in judicial review proceedings. 6. The said contention has been strongly opposed by Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 7. Instead of reiterating the rival submissions, we would proceed to deal with the contention. The said contention is that, there is a delay of 7 months as between the registration of the last and the 5th crime on 17.12.2021 and the issuance of Ext.P-1 detention order on 19.7.2022. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 7. Instead of reiterating the rival submissions, we would proceed to deal with the contention. The said contention is that, there is a delay of 7 months as between the registration of the last and the 5th crime on 17.12.2021 and the issuance of Ext.P-1 detention order on 19.7.2022. The said delay is inordinate and has not been explained and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped and hence, the impugned proceedings should be interfered with. 8. As regards this plea, it has to be noted that the last and 5th crime in this case is Crime No.992/2021 of Palakkad Kasba Police Station, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs.394 & 395 of the IPC. The case related to a highway robbery, wherein cash to the tune of more than Rupees 3.55 Crores was robbed. (See page 20 of the WP(Crl.)). It appears that, none of the culprits could be identified at the time of the incident and the crime was registered as against 10 unknown accused persons. During the course of intense investigation, it was revealed to the Police, based on fingerprint comparison, that according to them, the detenu herein is the kingpin of the nefarious crime. According to the Police, they could also identify the other culprits. The names of the identified persons were included as accused persons, subsequently, on 18.12.2021. 9. According to the Police, the detenu was abscondoning and was not available for apprehension and arrest. However, taking note of the gravity of abovesaid last crime, the 3rd respondent-District Police Chief, as the sponsoring authority, has given a report dated 6.4.2022 recommending to the 2nd respondent-District Collector that, it is a fit case for issuance of Sec.3(1) preventive detention order against the detenu. After due consideration, the 2nd respondent has taken the stand that, since the detenu has been successful enough to evade from the long arm of the law, despite intense police search, mere passing of a preventive detention order may not lead to the execution of the detention order by the arrest and detention. Hence, the 2nd respondent did not agree to the proposal of the 3rd respondent for the immediate orders of preventive detention. Hence, the 2nd respondent did not agree to the proposal of the 3rd respondent for the immediate orders of preventive detention. Later, after strenuous efforts, the investigating agency could arrest and remand the detenu, in regard to his involvement in the last crime only on 23.5.2022. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent, as sponsoring authority, gave report dated 4.6.2022 recommending to the 2nd respondent to pass orders of preventive detention against the detenu. Further, the 2nd & 3rd respondents had to await and carefully assess, as to whether the detenu had moved any bail applications before competent courts and whether such bail applications are pending or whether the same has been allowed or disallowed. Various other details had to be collected. For that purpose, the 3rd respondent had given additional reports on 20.6.2022 and 6.7.2022, whereby all the current details were updated and apprised to the 2nd respondent. After due consideration of the abovesaid 3 reports given on 4.6.2022, 20.6.2022, 6.7.2022, etc., the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P-1 detention order, dated 19.7.2022, holding that the said authority is satisfied that, it is a fit case to issue orders under Sec.3(1), so as to prevent the detenu from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities. These aspects, delineating as to why time was taken for passing Ext.P-1 detention order on 19.7.2022, have been detailed out and explained in the 2nd para given on page 11 and on page 12 of Ext.P-1 order. 10. It is by now well settled that, if the delay, as between the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of the detention order, has not been explained and the same is inordinate and unreasonable, then it goes without saying that, the impugned detention order has to be interdicted on the ground that the live link, as between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention, has been snapped. Since it is an elementary aspect of the matter, there is no necessity for referring to any judicial authorities on the point. The converse of the legal position is that, if the delay or the time taken in that regard could be explained reasonably and the same is not inordinate, then there is no question of the judicial review court interfering with such a preventive detention order, which is passed in the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 11. In the instant case, the last crime incident was committed on 15.12.2021. 11. In the instant case, the last crime incident was committed on 15.12.2021. None of the names of the culprits could be identified by the investigating authority. Based on fingerprint analysis, the Police came to the conclusion that the detenu is the kingpin of the crime incident and he was named as an accused only on 19.7.2022. According to the Police, since the detenu was abscondoning and was successful enough to evade from the long arm of the law, with great effort, he could be apprehended and arrested in the said crime, only on 23.5.2022. After the crime incident and before his arrest, the 3rd respondent has given a report on 6.4.2022, which was not accepted by the 2nd respondent for the reasons stated hereinabove. The said stand of the 2nd respondent cannot be assailed by us, as it is within a strategic decision of the 2nd respondent. Whether a proposal for preventive detention given by the District Police Chief should be accepted or not and when it should be put into action, etc., are all matters within the sole and exclusive domain of the 2nd respondent, who is the authorized detaining authority. Moreover, the said stand of the 2nd respondent, not to immediately act upon the proposal for preventive detention, appears to be a reasonably plausible one, as the detenu was successful enough to evade from the long arm of law for a very long period, i.e., from the date of crime incident, on 15.12.2021, up to his date of arrest, on 23.5.2022. Moreover, the materials would show that the detenu was involved in about 45 crimes since the year 2008. True that, the crimes that are relevant for consideration, for treating him as a 'Known Rowdy' etc., should be within the 7 year prior period and there are only 5 crimes in that regard. But, the fact that, the detenu was involved in 45 crimes, could be atleast evaluated and taken into account, for deciding as to how capable he is in evading from the long arm of law. Hence, at any rate, the said discretionary stand taken by the 2nd respondent, not to immediately act upon the initial proposal for preventive detention, cannot be assailed by the detenu and the said decision appears to be a reasonable one. It appears that, the respondents have decided to wait till the detenu is arrested. Hence, at any rate, the said discretionary stand taken by the 2nd respondent, not to immediately act upon the initial proposal for preventive detention, cannot be assailed by the detenu and the said decision appears to be a reasonable one. It appears that, the respondents have decided to wait till the detenu is arrested. Immediately thereafter, the 3rd respondent has given report dated 4.6.2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent, for preventive detention order, under Sec.3(1), against the detenu. Since the detenu was in judicial remand and custody in respect of the 5th crime since 23.5.2022, various relevant inputs had to be carefully collected and evaluated. For instance, it is highly incumbent that, the various relevant material particulars, as to whether the detenu has filed bail applications before the competent courts concerned, in regard to the 5th crime and whether such applications are pending or whether the same has been allowed or disallowed etc., should be collected from various sources. Various other inputs are also required. Or otherwise, an order of preventive detention passed in respect of Ext.P-1, without due advertence to very many relevant inputs, could be successfully assailed in judicial review proceedings. Therefore, the stand of the 2nd & 3rd respondents that, they had to give subsequent reports on 20.6.2022 & 6.7.2022, appears to be quite reasonable and fair. The last of the said report was given on 6.7.2022. Thereafter, after due consideration, the 2nd respondent -detaining authority has passed the impugned Ext.P-1 detention order on 19.7.2022. The time taken between the date of arrest of the detenu in the 5th crime, i.e. on 23.5.2022, up to the date of issuance of Ext.P-1, on 19.7.2022, is one month and 25 days. The time between the last of report of the 3rd respondent, i.e. 6.7.2022, up to 19.7.2022 (date of Ext.P-1), is only 13 days. Viewed from this perspective, we are not in a position to hold that the time taken by 2nd & 3rd respondents, in passing Ext.P-1 detention order on 19.7.2022, can be said to be inordinate or unexplained or per se unreasonable. In other words, we are constrained to overrule the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped in this case. 12. In other words, we are constrained to overrule the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped in this case. 12. We have to bear in mind that, we have come across many cases where orders, under Sec. 3(1) of the Act, passed without advertence to various relevant and necessary factual inputs, which would invite the peril of getting the preventive detention order interdicted in judicial review proceedings. Therefore, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have to be extremely careful and prudent in assessing various factual inputs and scenarios as stated above and hence, we are of the view that, the time taken in that regard, in the issuance of Ext.P-1 detention order, cannot be said to be vitiated by unexplained or inordinate delay. So, the above contention of the petitioner stands rejected. The Writ Petition fails and stands dismissed.