JUDGMENT S Vishwajith Shetty J. - The petitioner who is the mother of the detenue has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: a) 'Declare the detention of Chethan Kumar @ Chikkachethu, S/o Ramesh, by order No.12/CRM(4)/DTN/2022 dated 31.05.2022 (Annexures-A and B) passed by respondent No.1, approved by the respondent No.2 by order No.HD 331 SST 2022 dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure-E) and confirmed by the respondent No.2 by order No.HD 331 SST 2022 dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-F) as illegal and void ab initio. b) Pass such other order or orders declaring the order of detention, the order of approval and the order of confirmation as illegal and abinitio void. c) Pass such other orders including release of the detenu forthwith. d) Award costs.' 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the material available on record. 3. The facts of the case as revealed from the records as may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are: The first respondent had passed an order of detention under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers And Video And Audio Pirates Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 31.05.2022 and grounds of detention was also served on the detenue on the very same date. The order of detention passed by the first respondent was approved by the second respondent on 09.06.2022 and thereafter the matter was referred to the Advisory Board. In the meanwhile on 18.06.2022 the detenue had given a representation to the third respondent. Before the Advisory Board the detenue was produced on 07.07.2022 and after hearing the detenue on the said date, the report of the Advisory Board was reserved and the same was subsequently issued on 08.07.2022. On receipt of the said report, the State Government has passed the order of confirmation on 18.07.2022. Subsequently the State Government has also rejected the representation filed by the detenue on 26.07.2022. Under these circumstances, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenue is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody as on the date of passing the detention order and therefore it was not necessary to issue a detention order against him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenue is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody as on the date of passing the detention order and therefore it was not necessary to issue a detention order against him. He also submits that some of the documents which were relied on for the purpose of passing the detention order which were served on the detenue were not legible. Therefore, effective representation could not be made by the petitioner. He submits that the representation has not been considered by the State Government within a reasonable period and there is a delay in rejecting the same. He also submits that the Advisory Board has not considered the representation. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the detention order was passed in order to prevent the detenue from further involving in criminal activities. He also submits that all the procedural requirements under the Statute have been complied with, and therefore, the writ petition does not merit consideration and accordingly prays to dismiss the same. 6. We have considered the rival arguments addressed on both sides. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the order of detention was passed on 31.05.2022 and thereafter the detenue had forwarded his representation to the Advisory Board on 18.06.2022 through the third respondent. The original documents which are made available to the Court by the learned HCGP would go to show that the said representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board by the third respondent on 18.06.2022 itself. However, on the reading of the report dated 08.07.2022 of the Advisory Board, it would go to show that the representation submitted by the detenue to the third respondent has not at all been considered. The detenue who has appeared before the Advisory Board has also made a categorical statement that he has made a representation to the Advisory Board. Even though such statement is recorded by the Advisory Board in its report, the report is silent about the consideration of such a representation. The original records do not disclose that the Advisory Board has passed an order on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Even though such statement is recorded by the Advisory Board in its report, the report is silent about the consideration of such a representation. The original records do not disclose that the Advisory Board has passed an order on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Further the second respondent has also rejected the said representation submitted by the detenue on 26.07.2022 which is almost a month after the receipt of the representation by the third respondent. The non-consideration of the representation and delay in consideration of the representation will amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - (1970)1 SCC 219 , in paragraph 18 has observed as under: "18. It is established beyond any measure of doubt that the appropriate authority is bound to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. The appropriate Government itself is bound to consider the representation as expeditiously as possible. The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is too obvious to be stressed. The personal liberty of a person is at stake. Any delay would not only be an irresponsible act on the part of the appropriate authority but also unconstitutional because the Constitution enshrines the fundamental right of a detenu to have his representation considered and it is imperative that when the liberty of a person is in peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities." 9. Under the circumstances, the order of detention, the order of approval and the subsequent order of confirmation of the detention order cannot be sustained. Accordingly the following order: 9. The writ petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 31.05.2022, the order of approval dated 09.06.2022 and the subsequent order of confirmation of detention order dated 18.07.2022 vide Annexures-A, E and F respectively are quashed. We direct that the detenue/Chethan Kumar @ Chikkachethu shall be set at liberty forthwith by the Bengaluru Central Prison, if he is not required in connection with any other case.