Judgment :- (D. Murugesan, J.) Both the habeas corpus petitions are filed by the respective detenus themselves, who have been presently detained in the Central Jail, Madurai pursuant to the detention orders dated 12.11.2006 passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7/1980), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The detenus were branded as "Black Marketeers". 2. The only ground on which the orders of detention are challenged is that the detenus were not informed of their right to make a representation to the Central Government. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the detaining authority has only stated in the grounds of detention that "...Further if he wishes to make representation to the Central Government, he should address to the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 and Secretary to the Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India, New Delhi-110 001 and forward it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai as expeditiously as possible. ..." According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, by the above, the detenus were not informed of their right to make a representation, but the above is only an option given to the detenus and in the absence of a specific intimation to the detenus as to their right to make a representation to the Central Government, the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated and consequently the orders of detention are liable to be quashed. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspect. 4. For the disposal of the above petitions, the following provisions of the Act are referrable. Section 2 (a) of the Act reads as under: "2. Definitions.-- .... 3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspect. 4. For the disposal of the above petitions, the following provisions of the Act are referrable. Section 2 (a) of the Act reads as under: "2. Definitions.-- .... (a)"appropriate Government" means, as respects a detention order made by the Central Government or by an officer of the Central Government or a person detained under such order, the Central Government, and as respects a detention order made by a State Government or by an officer of a State Government or as respects a person detained under such order, the State Government;" Section 3 of the Act runs thus: "3.Power to make orders detaining certain persons.--(1)The Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.--- .... (a).... (b).... (i) .... (ii).... (2)Any of the following officers, namely:-- (a)District Magistrates; (b)Commissioners of Police, wherever they have been appointed, may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section. (3)when any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. Provided .... Provided .... (4)When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section or when any order is made under this section by an officer of the State Government not below the rank of Secretary to that Government specially empowered under sub-section (1), the State Government shall within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order." Section 8 of the Act would run thus: "8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order.-- (1)When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reason to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. (2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose." Section 14 of the Act reads as under: "14. Revocation of detention orders.-- (1)Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified-- (a)notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the Central Government; (b)notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the Central Government. (2)The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3 against the same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a State Government or an officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made." 5. The Act was enacted by the Parliament and is a Central legislation. The Act was enacted by the Parliament and is a Central legislation. The power to make orders of detention is vested not only in the Central Government, the State Government but also the officers of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. The appropriate Government, as defined under Section 2(a) means, whenever the detention order is made by the Central Government or by an officer of the Central Government, the appropriate Government would be the Central Government. Likewise, when the order of detention is made by the State Government or by an officer of the State Government, the appropriate Government is the State Government. As the legislation being a central enactment, the provisions of the Act must be considered with reference to the above appropriate Government which passes the order. 6. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3, the officers, namely District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police, wherever they have been appointed are also to be considered as officers of the State Government specifically empowered for the purpose to pass orders of detention. In terms of subsection (3) of Section 3, whenever the order is made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 3, such officers shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and other particulars. No such order remains in force for more than 12 days after making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Statement. In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 3, whenever the State Government approves the order of detention or whenever an order of detention is made by an officer of State Government not below the rank of Secretary to that Government specially empowered for this purpose, it shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. 7. The right of the detenu to have the grounds of detention and the materials which have a bearing on the matter flows from Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 7. The right of the detenu to have the grounds of detention and the materials which have a bearing on the matter flows from Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Such right is on the basis of the fundamental right safeguarded under the said Article in order to enable the detenu to make a representation to the appropriate Government. Inasmuch as the power to approve an order of detention made by its officers so empowered vests with the State Government, the detenu has got a right to make a representation to the detaining authority as well to the State Government, in addition to the representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. Any breach in the right guaranteed on the detenu to make a representation either to the detaining authority or to the State Government or to the Advisory Board may constitute violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In such circumstances, it is mandatory on the part of the detaining authority to inform the detenu as to his right to make a representation to the State Government and in such an event through whom such representation should be made. 8. Coming to the issue as to whether the detenu has got a right to make a representation to the Central Government as well in terms of Section 3 of the Act, Section 8 of the Act requires that whenever a person is detained, the authority making the detention order shall communicate the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. Though, in general, a fundamental right is conferred on the detenu to make an effective representation and for that purpose he should be communicated with the grounds of detention along with the relevant materials, such a right is further ensured in terms of Section 8 of the Act. By that Section, a right to make a representation is available to the detenu only to the appropriate Government. In the event an order of detention was passed by an officer of the Statement Government referred under Section 3, the appropriate Government shall be only the State Government and not the Central Government. By that Section, a right to make a representation is available to the detenu only to the appropriate Government. In the event an order of detention was passed by an officer of the Statement Government referred under Section 3, the appropriate Government shall be only the State Government and not the Central Government. In that event, there cannot be any vested right on the detenu to claim, as a matter of right, that he should also be informed of his right to make a representation to the Central Government, which right, in our considered view, is not inbuilt under Section 8 of the Act. 9. However, there is one more aspect to be considered as to the power of the Central Government even in matters of detention order passed either by the officers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 or the officer specially empowered in this regard in the State Government to interfere with the order of detention. Section 14 of the Act contemplates that even in such cases, the power is vested on the Central Government to either revoke or modify the order of detention. The said power of revocation or modification has to be read along with the duty of the State Government to forward the report as to the fact of the detention within a period of seven days from the date of approval to the Central Government. This power of revocation or modification could be exercised if, on consideration of such report along with other materials furnished by the Statement, the Central Government is of the opinion that the order of detention should be either revoked or modified. In addition to the above, even when the Central Government is provided with materials as to the detention from other sources like a representation by or on behalf of the detenu, it can exercise the power of revocation or modification. Section 14 though contemplates that once the report is received by the Central Government it has to be disposed of as it could be treated as one of a representation from the detenu even when there is no representation made directly by the detenu to the Central Government. However, this cannot be considered as one giving a right on the detenu to make a representation in terms of either Section 8 of the Act or Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. However, this cannot be considered as one giving a right on the detenu to make a representation in terms of either Section 8 of the Act or Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Of course, in case the detenu chooses to make a representation, the Central Government is bound to consider the same and pass orders. 10. If we view the entire matter as above, in our considered opinion, though under Section 8 of the Act a right is conferred on the detenu to make a representation to the State Government, namely the appropriate Government, and for the said purpose he must be informed of such right to make a representation by the detaining authority, non-communication of such a right through the detention order/grounds of detention would certainly vitiate the order of detention. Further, in the case of Central Government, as there is no vested right on the detenu to make a representation to the Central Government which is not the appropriate Government when the order of detention is passed either by the officers of the State Government or by itself, merely because the detaining authority did not inform such a right to the detenu to make a representation to the Central Government, it cannot be said that the order of detention is vitiated. All that the detaining authority is obligated to inform the detenu is that in the event or if he desires to make a representation to the Central Government, he can make such such a representation to the Central Government through the specified officers as the case may be. If the detenu is informed of the above, it would be sufficient compliance for the detaining authority while communicating the grounds of detention. 11. Hence, for over all above consideration, we hold that the failure on the part of the detaining authority to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation to the Central Government, when the appropriate Government is the State Government, will not vitiate the order of detention. 12. Accordingly, both the habeas corpus petitions fail and they are dismissed.