ORDER : The petitioner is the father of the detenu Sri Jaiprakash Suresh Dhamejani, who is interested in the life and well being of the detenu. The detenu was issued with an order of preventive detention dated 1392019 by the Detaining Authority under the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974,(for short ‘COFEPOSA’ Act), vide Annexure-A. The grounds of detention were also furnished to the detenu. In para No.76, the detenu was informed that he has a right to make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority, the Karnataka Government, the Central Government and also to the Advisory Board. Para 77 narrates the manner in which a representation could be made to the Central Government. Para 78 narrates the manner in which the representation is to be made to the Detaining Authority and para 79 the manner in which a representation is to be made to the Advisory Board. 2. It is the primary contention of the petitioner’s counsel that he has not been furnished with the information of the manner in which the representation has to be made to the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, his right to make a representation to the Government of Karnataka has been infringed. The same affects his fundamental right. Therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained. 3. The respondent – State have filed their statement of objections. It is contended therein that so far as the ground pertaining to not providing the manner in which the representation is to be made to the Government of Karnataka is concerned, such a contention cannot be accepted. It is their case that the petitioner has failed to understand the basic fact that the said order of detention was issued by the Government of Karnataka represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, as the Detaining Authority. That the header of the Detention Order itself says “Government of Karnataka”, undersigned as the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Home Department. Therefore, nothing stops the detenu from making a representation to the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, the detention order is in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsels. 5. That the header of the Detention Order itself says “Government of Karnataka”, undersigned as the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Home Department. Therefore, nothing stops the detenu from making a representation to the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, the detention order is in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsels. 5. After having afforded an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation to the authorities as enunciated in para76 of the grounds of detention, the manner in which the representations could be made to the Central Government, the Detaining authority and the Advisory Board have been enunciated. There is no indication therein as to how a representation has to be made to the Government of Karnataka. 6. The contention of Sri Dyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, firstly is that, it is quite obvious that the representation has to be made to the Government of Karnataka. That if such a representation is made, the same would have been considered by the Government of Karnataka. That what has been provided in paras77, 78 and 79 is a mere indication as to the manner in which the representation is to be made. The non-mentioning of the manner in which to make a representation to the Government of Karnataka, would not vitiate the detention order. 7. However, the same is countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the Judgment in the case of KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 643. At para6, it was held as follows: “6. This provision has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. (See: State of Bombay v.Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya) ( AIR 1951 SC 157 ). Article 22(5) imposes a dual obligation on the authority making the order of preventive detention: (i) to communicate to the person detailed as soon as may be the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) to afford the person detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Article 22(5) imposes a dual obligation on the authority making the order of preventive detention: (i) to communicate to the person detailed as soon as may be the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) to afford the person detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Article 22(5) thus proceeds on the basis that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention and the aforementioned two obligations are imposed on the authority making the order of detention with a view to ensure that right of the person detained to make a representation is a real right and he is able to take steps for redress of a wrong which he thinks has been committed. Article 22(5) does not, however, indicate the authority to whom the representation is to be made. Since the object and purpose of the representation that is to be made by the person detained is to enable him to obtain relief at the earliest opportunity, the said representation has to be made to the authority which can grant such relief, i.e., the authority which can revoke the order of detention and set him at liberty. The authority that has made the order of detention can also revoke it. This right is inherent in the power to make the order. It is recognised by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 though it does not flow from it. It can, therefore, be said that Article 22(5) postulates that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authority making the order. In addition, such a representation can be made to any other authority which is empowered by law to revoke the order of detention.” Therefore, the fundamental right of the petitioner to make a representation has since been affected. Even though he has a right to make a representation to the State Government, the Detaining Authority has not indicated as to how such a representation has to be made to the Government of Karnataka. However, the Detaining Authority has narrated the manner in which the representation should be made to the three other authorities. Even though he has a right to make a representation to the State Government, the Detaining Authority has not indicated as to how such a representation has to be made to the Government of Karnataka. However, the Detaining Authority has narrated the manner in which the representation should be made to the three other authorities. Therefore, the violation by the Detaining Authority to indicate as to how a representation is to be made to the Government of Karnataka, would render the further detention of the detenu as being illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following: ORDER Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No.130 of 2019 is allowed. The further detention of the detenu is held to be illegal. The detenu, namely, Sri Jaiprakash Suresh Dhamejani, son of Sri. Suresh Thakurdas Dhamejani, is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required in any other case/s. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this order to the Jail Authorities, Central Prisons, Parapanna Agrahara, Bengaluru, forthwith, for necessary action.