JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The identical petitioner seeks release of her husband and his brother, in the respective writ petitions, from preventive detention. The detenues have been detained under separate orders by reason of the criminal activities indulged in by them. We dispose of the writ petitions by this common judgment, since the contentions raised against the detention order are almost identical.

2. Sri. Hanis M.H. learned Counsel appearing in W.P. (Crl.) No. 516 of 2022 is concerned with the detention of the petitioner's husband, who was taken into custody on 23.02.2022. It is argued that there are no documents to evidence compliance of sub-section (2) of S.7 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act [for brevity ‘KAA(P)A’]. The contention is that there is no information in writing, under acknowledgment, of the right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against the detention. The last prejudicial activity was on 20.10.2021 and there is a delay of more than four months in passing the detention order. It is further argued that the detention order, immediately on its making, was not supplied to the Government, which as per S.3(3) has