K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The son of the petitioner stands detained under the provisions of the Kerala Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’). Ext.P1 is the order of detention dated 20.7.2011. Ext.P2 is the approval dated 9.8.2011.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would address the following arguments before us: In the first place, he would submit that petitioner’s son was detained earlier under the Act on the basis that he was a known goonda, but now he is again detained on the basis that he is a known rowdy. Secondly, he would contend that there is delay in the matter of passing the order. Further, Ext.P4 shows that he was acquitted in one of the cases. Next, he would submit that he had actually made a representation to the Advisory Board, but that has not been considered. He would further contend that the representation, even though was forwarded with its opinion to the Government by the Advisory Board, the same has not been considered and that entitles him for release from continued custody.

4. Learned Additional D.G.P. would suppor