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 support the order. He would submit that there is no undue delay. He would press into service Section 13 of the Act in order to justify the order of detention. He would submit that Ext.P4 evidences only compounding of the offence and that too, more importantly, subsequent to the order. As far as the representation before the Advisory Board is concerned, he would submit that under Section 10 of the Act, the Advisory Board is obliged in law to send its opinion within the outer limit of 9 weeks from the date of detention. The outer limit was reached on 30.9.2011. The representation was given on 15.9.2011. The Advisory Board has noted that the representation filed by the detenu was sent to the concerned authorities for getting their remarks and in view of the paucity of time, the Advisory Board was justified in not considering the representation, as otherwise not sending the opinion within the time stipulated in Section 10 of the Act would have resulted in relief being granted to the detenu without basis.

5. As far as the question relating to non-consideration of the representation by the Government, he would submit that the detenu was appraised of his right in the language with which he is familiar to address a representation to the Government and to the Advisory Board. Still he chose to address a representation only to the Advisory Board. He would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.Keshava v. M.B.Prakash [(2001)2 SCC 145] to contend that there is no duty on the part of the Advisory Board, in such circumstances to forward the representation filed before the Advisory Board to the Government. If that be so, when the detenu has not addressed any representation to the Government, there is no duty to consider the same by the Government, he submits.

6. We feel that the writ petitioner is entitled to relief on the last ground mentioned, viz., that the representation though addressed to the Advisory Board ought to have been considered by the Government. There is no dispute that the detenu made a representation dated 15.9.2011. Under Section 9 of the Act, any representation which may be given by the detenu, along with other records is to be placed before the Advisory Board, within a period of three weeks from the date of detention. No doubt, no representation was given within the said time as such. The detention was ordered vide Ext.P1 dated 20.7.2011. The detenu was arrested on 28.7.2011. The period of three weeks from the date of detention expired on 18.8.2011. Under Section 10 of the Act, the Advisory Board is to render its opinion within a period of nine weeks from the date of detention. Therefore, the outet limit contemplated under Section 10 expired on 30.9.2011. The representation was given by the detenu only on 15.9.2011. The proceedings of the Adviso