JUDGMENT : K.T. Sankaran, J. The question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether a person who has been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') is entitled to be informed that he has a right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board against the detention or whether it is sufficient that he is informed that he has got a right to make a representation either to the Government or to the Advisory Board. 2. Dini Babu, the son of the petitioner, was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA as per Ext.P1 order of detention dated 22.8.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Dini Babu was arrested on 27.8.2015. The order of detention was confirmed on 28.10.2015. 3. In Ext.P2 grounds of detention it is stated as follows: VERNACULAR MATTER It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu submitted a representation before the Advisory Board and he did not make a representation to the Government as he was misled by the statement in Ext.P2 that he could only elect either of the authorities for the purpose of making a representation. It is submitted that the mandatory requirement of Section 7 of the KAAPA was violated and, therefore, the detenu is liable to be set at liberty forthwith. The learned counsel submitted that the dual right of the detenu to make a representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the Government was denied by the aforesaid statement in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel submitted that even in the separate communication (Ext.R3(c)) to the detenu given at the time of arrest indicates that the detenu would have the right to make a representation either to the Additional Chief Secretary or to the Chairman of the Advisory Board. 4. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that in Ext.P2 as well as in Ext.R3(c), the idea communicated to the detenu is clear. He submitted that, at any rate, neither Ext.P2 nor Ext.R3(c) would give any indication that once the detenu makes a representation to either of the authorities, his right to make a representation to the other authority is taken away. 5. He submitted that, at any rate, neither Ext.P2 nor Ext.R3(c) would give any indication that once the detenu makes a representation to either of the authorities, his right to make a representation to the other authority is taken away. 5. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Section 7 (2) of the KAAPA reads as follows: "7. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed.-- (1) (2) The grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, as far as practicable, on the basis of which he is considered as a "known goonda" or 'known rowdy" and giving such materials-relating to his activities on the basis of which his detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to him as soon as possible, nevertheless, in any case, within five days of detention and he shall also be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention: Provided that nothing in this section shall require any authority to disclose to the detained person any fact, the disclosure of which will reveal the identity of any confidential source or the disclosure of which will reveal the identity of any confidential source or the disclosure of which will be against the interests of internal security or national security." 6. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and others ( (1995) 4 SCC 51 ), relied on the decision in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya ( AIR 1951 SC 157 ) and held that Article 22(5) has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. It was noticed that Article 22(5) does not, however, indicate the authority to whom the representation is to be made. It was noticed that Article 22(5) does not, however, indicate the authority to whom the representation is to be made. In Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel's case, the Additional Solicitor General stressed on the word 'a' in singular in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and contended that it indicates that only one representation is to be made and it has to be made to the Advisory Board. The Constitution Bench did not agree with that contention and to give a restricted meaning to the words "making a representation against the order" in Article 22(5) which is in the nature of a fundamental right affording protection to the person detained. The Constitution Bench held thus: "7. As stated earlier, the object underlying the right to make a representation that is envisaged by Article 22(5) is to enable the person detained to obtain immediate relief. If the construction placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General is accepted relief may not be available to the detenu till the matter is considered by the Advisory Board and that would depend upon the time taken by the appropriate Government in referring the matter to the Advisory Board." 7. In K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1991 SC 574 ), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held thus: "11. It is now beyond the pale of controversy that the constitutional right to make representation under clause (5) of Article 22 by necessary implication guarantees the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the representation. Secondly, the obligation of the Government to afford to the detenu an opportunity to make representation and to consider such representation is distinct from the Government's obligation to refer the case of detenu along with the representation to the Advisory Board to enable it to form its opinion and send a report to the Government. It is implicit in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 that the Government while discharging its duty to consider the representation, cannot depend upon the views of the Board on such representation. It has to consider the representation on its own without being influenced by any such view of the Board. The obligation of the Government to consider the representation is different from the obligation of the Board to consider the representation at the time of hearing the references. It has to consider the representation on its own without being influenced by any such view of the Board. The obligation of the Government to consider the representation is different from the obligation of the Board to consider the representation at the time of hearing the references. The Government considers the representation to ascertain essentially whether the order is in conformity with the power under the law. The Board, on the other hand, considers the representation and the case of the detenu to examine whether there is sufficient cause for detention. The consideration by the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for consideration of the representation by the Government. The right to have the representation considered by the Government, is safeguarded by Clause (5) of Article 22 and it is independent of the consideration of the detenu's case and his representation by the Advisory Board under Clause (4) of Article 22 read with Section 8(c) of the Act. (See: Sk. Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 433 : AIR 1969 SC 1028 ; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal, 1970 (1) SCR 543 : AIR 1970 SC 97 ; Shyamal Chakraborty v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, 1969 (2) SCC 426 : AIR 1970 SC 269 ; B. Sundar Rao v. State of Orissa, 1972 (3) SCC 11 : AIR 1972 SC 739 ; John Martin v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (3) SCR 211 : AIR 1975 SC 775 ; S. K. Sekawat v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (2) SCR 161 : AIR 1975 SC 64 ; and Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (1) SCR 778 : AIR 1974 SC 2154 )." 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Razack A.A. v. State of Kerala and others (I.L.R. 2015 (4) Kerala 18), held thus: "73. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the responsibility or the burden cast upon the detaining authority, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 7 (2) of the KAAPA, while passing orders for detaining "known goondas" or "known rowdies" under Section 3 of the Act, will stand discharged by affording an earliest opportunity to make a representation and communication of the availability of such opportunity/ right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention. The detaining authority is not bound, as per the scheme of Act 34 of 2007, to inform the detenu of his right to represent before the detaining authority himself, as there exist no such right." 9. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution relied on a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in R. Keshava v. M.B. Prakash and others ( (2001) 2 SCC 145 = 2001 KHC 1710) and submitted that the detenu having made a representation only to the Advisory Board and not to the Government, he cannot thereafter complain that the Government did not consider his representation. The question considered in R. Keshava's case was whether the Government was bound to consider the representation which was submitted by the detenu before the Advisory Board and which the Advisory Board was expected to forward to the Government. In R. Keshava's case, the Supreme Court held that it was not as if there are two separate and distinct provisions for representation to two different authorities, namely, the detaining authority and the Advisory Board, both having independent power to act on its own. The Supreme Court further held thus: "We are satisfied that the detenu in this case was apprised of his right to make representation to the appropriate government/authorities against his order of detention as mandated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Despite knowledge, the detenu did not avail of the opportunity. Instead of making a representation to the appropriate government or the confirming authority, the detenu chose to address a representation to the Advisory Board alone even without a request to send its copy to the concerned authorities under the Act. In the absence of representation or the knowledge of the representation having been made by the detenu, the appropriate government was justified in confirming the order of detention on perusal of record and documents excluding the representation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board. For this alleged failure of the appropriate government, the order of detention of the appropriate government is neither rendered unconstitutional nor illegal." 10. The factual scenario in R. Keshava's case is different from the present case. There is also a difference with respect to the cases of preventive detention under the KAAPA as distinguished from the preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The factual scenario in R. Keshava's case is different from the present case. There is also a difference with respect to the cases of preventive detention under the KAAPA as distinguished from the preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. Section 7(2) of the KAAPA specifically provides that the detenu shall be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and the Advisory Board against his detention. The word "and" occurring in Section 7(2) makes it explicit that it is not "or". It is not sufficient that the detenu is informed that he has got a right to make a representation either to the Government or to the Advisory Board. As held by the Constitution Bench in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi's case, the obligation of the Government to consider the representation is different from the obligation of the Advisory Board to consider the representation at the time of hearing the references. The consideration by the Advisory Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for consideration of the representation by the Government. The right to have the representation considered by the Government is safeguarded by clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and it is independent of the consideration of the detenu's representation by the Advisory Board under clause (4) of Article 22 read with Section 10(1) of the KAAPA. Rejection of the representation by the Advisory Board while giving its opinion under Section 10(1) of the KAAPA is not a final opinion in the matter. In spite of the opinion by the Advisory Board that there are sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government may, at any time, revoke the order of detention under Section 13 of the KAAPA. A representation submitted by the detenu to the Government could favourably be considered by the Government even after the opinion of the Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned is received by the Government. The right of the Government to revoke an order of detention is not fettered by the opinion given by the Advisory Board. The power of the Government under Section 13 is unrestricted. 11. Unlike an order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA, the detenu will not be given notice before an order under Section 3(1) is passed. The right of the Government to revoke an order of detention is not fettered by the opinion given by the Advisory Board. The power of the Government under Section 13 is unrestricted. 11. Unlike an order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA, the detenu will not be given notice before an order under Section 3(1) is passed. A person who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA does not get any opportunity before his arrest. His right accrues only on his arrest, at which point of time, the officer arresting him shall read out the detention order to him and give him a copy of such order (see Section 7(1) of the KAAPA). The grounds of detention along with copies of the relevant documents shall be furnished to the detenu as soon as possible and, at any rate, within five days of his detention. A detenu under the Preventive Detention Laws would be arrested and detained abruptly. Unlike in the trial of a criminal case, the person concerned who has been detained under the KAAPA would not get much opportunity to mould his defence and to put forward his arguments. A detenu's right is confined to make a representation to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board shall also hear the detenu if he expresses a desire to be heard in person. Before the Government, the detenu will not get an opportunity to be heard in person while considering the representation. The rights of the detenu would be protected by providing a meaningful opportunity to him to make representations as provided under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. The detenu must be informed of his right in writing and under acknowledgment. The detenu should not be given an information which is capable of having different interpretations. The information supplied to the detenu should be correct, specific and beyond any suspicion. The wording of Section 7(2) and particularly the word "and" occurring in the expression "right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board" makes the position clear that the Legislature intended that the detenu should be informed that he has distinct rights of making a representation to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board. The detaining authority cannot substitute the word "or" for the word "and" occurring in Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. The detaining authority cannot substitute the word "or" for the word "and" occurring in Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. The information supplied in Ext.P2 representation is contrary to the information which is contemplated under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. The continued detention of the detenu is, therefore, vitiated. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal and he shall be released forthwith. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The detenu shall be released forthwith unless his detention is required with respect to any other case. The Registry shall communicate the gist of the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur.