Immediate consideration of the detenue's representation is imperative to safeguard personal liberty, and any delay in the process would be unconstitutional.

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. 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 B