( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on behalf of sri Rachakonda Srinivas Rao (hereinafter referred to as the detenu ), who has been detained and is lodged in Central Prison, cherlapalli.

( 2 ) THE detenu has been detained by an order dated 28. 8. 2004 in terms of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The Collector and District Magistrate, nalgonda, ordered the detention and communicated the grounds of detention to the detenu. There are as many as 10 grounds in the grounds of detention and the order of detention has been challenged on various counts. One of the grounds for challenging the order of detention is that the detenu had not been informed that he had a right to make a representation to the detaining authority against the order of detention. This fact is not disputed and we have perused the records. The records also do not reveal that the detenu was informed that he had a right to make a representation to the detaining authority against the detention. At the end of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority informed the detenu:"1. You have a right to make representation against this order of detention to the chief Secretary, Government of Andhra pradesh, A. P. , Hyderabad. 2. The matter will be referred to the Advisory board within three weeks of the date of detention. You have a right to make a representation in writing to the said advisory Board. You have also a right to be heard in person before the Advisory board meets to consider the matter. As such hearing of the Advisory Board you have a right to take the assistance of any person of your choice, such person not being a legal practitioner. "

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the government or the Advisory Board would consider the representation of the detenu at a subsequent stage and the detenu had a right to make a representation against the order of detention at the earliest point of time, if he had been informed that he had a right to make a representation to the detaining authority. The learned Government Pleader appearing for Advocate-General however, submits that since the detenu had been informed that he has a right to make a representation to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Advisory Board therefore, he does not get prejudiced if the detaining authority failed to inform the detenu that he had a right to make a representation to the detaining authority, that would not vitiate the detention.

( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that this question is not res intigra and has already been decided by a Constitutional bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He farther submits that since Article 22 of the Constitution of India gives a right to the detenu to make a representation to the detaining authority, such a right cannot be compromised in any circumstances. He refers to a judgment reported in kamleshkwnar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of india and others, (1995) 4 SCC 51. This is the judgment by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The question that was posed by the Court for an answer to itself was:"when an order for preventive detention is passed by an officer especially empowered to do so by the Central Government or the state Government, is the said officer required to consider the representation submitted by the detenu ?"then the Supreme Court went on to answer this question and observed:"the question posed has to be considered in the light of the provisions relating to preventive detention contained in Article 22 of the Constitution as well as the provisions contained in the relevant statutes. "the Supreme Court noted that Article 22 (5) envisages that whenever a person is detained in pursuance of an order of preventive detention, the authority making such order,