T. Nandakumar Singh, J.:- The petitioner-detenu, in the present writ petition has taken the stand that detention order is liable to be set aside for infringement of his right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as he could not file effective representation against the detention order for the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to furnish copy of the Police report said to have been relied by the Detaining Authority, the District Magistrate, Imphal West for coming to his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future by the normal criminal Courts as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal Courts. 2. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenu, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior G.A., for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. Factual Background 3. On 20.01.2010 at about 5.30 pm, petitioner-detenu was arrested near his place of work i.e. Computer Gallery located at Keisampat near Churachandpur Bus Parking and thereafter a gun and some ammunitions were recovered from his house and produced before the concerned Magistrate, in connection with FIR No. 9 (1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34 IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act and 16/19/20 UA (P) A Act. The learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner-detenu to the Police custody till 30.01.2010. On 30.01.2010 the petitioner-detenu was furnished with the impugned detention order being No. Cril/NSA/No. 13 of 2010 dated 30.01.2010. 4. Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenu has given much emphasis to the contents of the impugned detention order dated 30.01.2010 while pressing case of the petitioner-detenu that his right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed in the given case, it would be apposite to quote the impugned detention order hereunder. "In the Court of the District Magistrate: Imphal West District, Manipur Orders Imphal, the 30.01.2010 No. Cril/NSA/No. 13 of 2010. Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Khoisnam Gunaban Singh @ John @ Ibungo @ Ibomcha (31 yrs.) s/o. Kh. "In the Court of the District Magistrate: Imphal West District, Manipur Orders Imphal, the 30.01.2010 No. Cril/NSA/No. 13 of 2010. Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Khoisnam Gunaban Singh @ John @ Ibungo @ Ibomcha (31 yrs.) s/o. Kh. Gouramani Singh of Uripok Khoisam Leikai, PS Imphal, District -Imphal West, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order; Whereas, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980. Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Shri Khoisnam Gunaban Singh @ John @ Ibungo @ Ibomcha (31 years) s/o. Kh. Gouramani Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, PS Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudical to the security of the State and maintenance of public order; And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Khoisnam Gunaban Singh @ John @ Ibungo @ Ibomcha (31 yrs.) s/o. Kh. Gouramani Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, PS Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to be released .on bail in the near future by the normal criminal Court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal Courts. Now, therefore, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section-3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17 (1)/49/80-H (Pt-I) dated 10.11.2009 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in Police Custody be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 until further orders. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this thirty day of January 2010. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West." 5. The detaining authority i.e. the learned District Magistrate, Imphal West, in compliance with the mandates of Section 8 of the NS A, 1980 furnished the grounds of order of detention to the petitioner-detenu under his letter dated 1.2.2010. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West." 5. The detaining authority i.e. the learned District Magistrate, Imphal West, in compliance with the mandates of Section 8 of the NS A, 1980 furnished the grounds of order of detention to the petitioner-detenu under his letter dated 1.2.2010. The requirements under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 are that the detaining authority, as soon as may be, but not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him (detenu) 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. While furnishing the grounds of detention the detaining authority in his letter dated 1.2.2010 vide para 4, had categorically mentioned that the documents which form the basic grounds of detention are enclosed herewith for reference. It is not disputed that copies of the documents mentioned in para 4 of the letter of the District Magistrate dated 1.2.2010 had been furnished to the petitioner-detenu. In the grounds of detention furnished under the said letter of the District Magistrate, dated 1.2.2010, the material facts and factual finding for coming to the subjective satisfaction that the application of normal criminal law against the petitioner-detenu will not at all be effective to prevent the petitioner-detenu from the commission of further prejudicial activities; and alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for, are clearly mentioned. For easy reference, the said letter of the District Magistrate, dated 1.2.2010 is reproduced hereunder: "Government of Manipur Office of the District Magistrate: Imphal West District No. Cril/NSA/No. 13 of 2010 Imphal, the 12.2010 To No. Cri/NSA/No. 13 of 2010 Imphal, the 1 Shri Khoisnam Gunaban Singh @ John @ Ibungo @ Ibomcha (31 yrs) s/o. Kh. Gouramani Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, PS- Imphal District- Imphal West, Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. In pursuance of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 you are hereby informed that the grounds of detention are as follows: 1. Gouramani Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, PS- Imphal District- Imphal West, Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. In pursuance of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 you are hereby informed that the grounds of detention are as follows: 1. That, since the year 1999 PREPAK, you have been associated with R. K. Ramananda Singh @ Naoba @ Inaoba @ Inao @ Prasan @ Rozer @ Basanta s/o. (L) R. K. Sanatomba Singh of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, an important member of PREPAK by then and now (sic) Commander of Imphal West finance section of PREPAK. In due course of time you know the following PREPAK members through R.K. Ramananda Singh. i) Moirangthem Manao Singh @ Mohen @ Pari @ Parimacha @ Sana (26 yrs) S/o M. Nimaichand @ Nimai of Tera Bazar Sayang Lambi. ii) Yambem Ibungochouba Meitei @ Ibomcha @ Kumar (34 yrs) s/o. (L) Y. Sanajaoba Meitei of Moirang Kampu Sajeb Maning Lekai. iii) Leikhram Munal Singh @ Sanathoi s/o. (L) Amusana Singh of Langjing Achouba Maning Leikai. iv) Ngangbam Sagar Singh (28 yrs) s/o Ng. Imo Singh of Sagolband Moirang Leirak Akham Lampak. You along with R.K. Sushitra Devi, elder sister of R.K. Ramananda Singh arranged the sheltering place of the above noted PREPAK members at your house and in the house of Smt. Salam (O) Sosim (44 yrs) w/o. S. Chingthangkhomba Singh of Thanmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai. Since the middle part of 2009, the above noted PREPAK members under the command of Shri Parimcha @ M. Manao Singh started to take shelter in the house of Smt. Sosim at Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai with the knowledge of her husband as arranged by you and R.K. Sushitra Devi. The above noted PREPAK (V/C) members under the command of Shri M. Manao Singh @ Pari @ Parimacha held a number of camera meetings either in the house of Smt. Sosim or you as arranged by you. PREPAK leaders including R. K. Ramananda Singh used the service of you as courier among PREPAK members who were working at Imphal and you transported arms and ammunition of PREPAK (V/C) from one place to another. The arms and ammunition and incriminating documents of PREPAK (V/C) were also kept concealed either at the above noted house or at your house for a number of days. The arms and ammunition and incriminating documents of PREPAK (V/C) were also kept concealed either at the above noted house or at your house for a number of days. In the last part of 2009 R.K. Sushitra Devi made over one 9 mm pistol marked as A12000169 with 5 live rounds of 9 mm in one magazine to you and informed you to keep conceal the arms and ammunition in your custody till your arrest. In the 1 st week of January 2010 Shri M. Manao @ Pari directed you to collect one hand grenade from Shri Inao Singh of Kakching a/p Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, an important PREPAK and made over the same to R. K. Suchitra Devi for a mission to be carried out by the above noted PREPAK members. Accordingly, on 6.1.2010 in the morning you collected one hand grenade from Shri Inao Singh of Kachikhul a/p Sagolband Bijoy Govinda and made over the same to R.K. Suchitra Devi in the morning of 6.1.2010. In her turn, R.K. Suchitra Devi made over the same to Smt. Sosim Devi for the mission. On the same day i.e. on 6.1.2010 at about 4.30 pm the above noted PREPAK members hurled the hand grenade which was collected from Smt. Sosim at the entrance gate of the Hon'ble MLS Shri Radhabinod at Thangmeiband Lourungpurel Leikai for neglecting the monetary demand of PREPAK (V/C) faction. It refers to FIR No. 9(1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34IPC, 3 Expl Subs. Act and 16/19/20UA(P)Act. Such acts of giving shelter, keeping arms and ammunition concealed and rendering help to the members of the banned organisation namely, PREPAK, carried out by gave a terror wave and peril to the lives of general public which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The vowed aim and object of the banned organisation namely - Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and to create an independent, sovereign State of Manipur. For this purpose, the said organization started procuring arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities in Manipur. In pursuance of their objectives, the members of the organisation committed a series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom from different parts of Manipur. For this purpose, the said organization started procuring arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities in Manipur. In pursuance of their objectives, the members of the organisation committed a series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom from different parts of Manipur. The ring leaders have sought foreign assistance and established links with countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and other countries inimical to India and committed series of prejudicial actities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. Besides, a joint declaration was signed by the President, of RPF and the Chairman of PREPAK and UNLF on the 1 st March, 1999 for the formation df a new underground organisation namely - The Manipur Peoples' Liberation Front (MPLF in short). In consideration of the large scale prejudicial activities of the Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), its armed wing the Red Army and the Manipur People's Liberation Front (MPLF) were declared unlawful Association by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide the gazette of India Notification under No. S.O. 2883 (F) dated 13.11.2009. 2. That, on 20.1.2010 at 5.30 pm you were arrested in connection with FIR No. 9 (1) 2010 IPS under Sections 307/326/34 IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act and 16/19/20 UA (P) Act from Sagolband Bijoy Govinda and recovered one 9 mm pistol marked as A 120001691 with 5 live rounds of 9 mm in one magazine from your house at your pointing. The same were seized by observing formality. You were remanded to police custody till 30.01.2010 in connection with the above noted case. 3. That, in view of your tendencies and indications reflected in the prejudicial activities committed by you in the proximate past as a supporter of the banned organisation, namely Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) V/C faction, which disturbs public order affecting public tranquillity, I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a hard core member of the said organisation would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of the public order. Hence, the application of normal criminal against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for. Hence, the application of normal criminal against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for. From the above grounds, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order, I have made this order directing that you be detained under NSA, 1980. 4. That, the copies of the following documents which form the basic grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your reference. a) Your statement given before the I.O. on 21.1.2010. b) Statements of SI Kh. Rajkumar Singh of IPS recorded under Section 161 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 9 (1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act & 16/19/20UA(P)Act. c) Statement of SI W. Dhirajkumar Singh of IPS recorded under Section 161 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 9(1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34 IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act and 16/19/20 UA(P) Act. d) Statement of Khoisnam (O) Inakhunbee Devi (30yrs) w/o. Kh. Gunaban Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai recorded under Section 161 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 9 (1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34 IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act and 16/19/20 UA(P) Act. e) Copy of Arrest memo dated 20.01.2010. f) Copy of seizure memo dated 21.01.2010. g) Copy of the Notification under No. S.O. 2883 (E) dated 13.11.2009. h) Copy of local daily "the Poknapham" dated 18.03.99. i) Copy of FIR No. 9(1) 2010 IPS under Section 307/326/34 IPC, 3 Expl Subs Act and 161 19/20UA(P)Act. j) Copy of the Government of Manipur. Home Department's Order No. 17 (1)/49/80-H (Pt.-I) dated 10.11.2009. 5. That, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through Add). 5. That, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through Add). Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur in respect of representation to the Government of Manipur and to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi-110001" in respect of representation to the Central Government and should be submitted within 3 (three) weeks from the date of detention. Further, you are informed that you have a right to make representation to the detaining authority within 12 (twelve) days from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the State Government whichever is earlier. The representation is to be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal West. Representation, if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board within 3 (three) weeks time from the date of your detention and such other documents/papers in connection with your detention as the Government is bound under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration. 6. That, you are hereby informed that the Advisory Board may call for such information as it may deem necessary from you and if you desire to be heard, hear you in person. You may intimate about it and arrangement may be made to produce you before the Board on the date fixed by it for the purpose. SdA (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West District." 6. On 05.02.2010 the petitioner-detenu filed a representation to the detaining authority for revocation of the impugned detention order wherein the petitioner-detenu also prayed for supplying a copy of the Police report mentioned in the detention order at the earliest so as to afford the petitioner-detenu an opportunity of a proper and meaningful representation. On 05.02.2010 the petitioner-detenu filed a representation to the detaining authority for revocation of the impugned detention order wherein the petitioner-detenu also prayed for supplying a copy of the Police report mentioned in the detention order at the earliest so as to afford the petitioner-detenu an opportunity of a proper and meaningful representation. The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980 approved the impugned detention order vide order No. 17 (1) 30/2010-H dated 5.2.2010 and later on, after consideration of the opinion of the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the National Security Act, 1980 that there is sufficient cause for detention/continuation of the said person under the said act and also the relevant documents/materials placed by the concerned authority, confirmed the detention order and further fixed the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention vide order No. 17 (1) 30/2010-H dated 20.03.2010. Hence the present writ petition for assailing the impugned detention order, impugned approval order and the impugned confirmation order for the grounds that the petitioner-detenu's right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been infringed for the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish copy of the Police report mentioned in the impugned detention order thereby causing much prejudice and as a result, petitioner detenu could not file effective representation. 7. The District Magistrate, Imphal West as well as respondent No. 2, State of Manipur filed separate affidavit in oppositions wherein it has been categorically stated that copies of the documents which form the basic ground of detention had been furnished to the petitioner-detenu but the request for supply of copies of the Police report mentioned in the impugned detention order was denied as they are confidential documents and also that the Police Report is not one of the documents which form the basic ground for detention. 8. 8. Keeping clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India which mandates that the authority, making the order of detention, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which order has been made, and afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order; and also clause (6) of Article 22 which enables the authority making the detention order to consider as to whether disclosure of fact, while communicating the grounds of detention in compliance with clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India would be against the public interest at juxtapose, this Court has to consider such right guaranteed to the petitioner and such enabling provisions for the detaining authority. This Court has to keep a balance between the requirements for detaining a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 by the competent authority on one hand and right and liberty of the citizen of India on the another hand. Neither of the party should have the impression that their case has been prejudiced by the order of this Court. 9. The framers of our constitution accepted the preventive detention as an unavoidable necessity but that necessity should not be aggravated by an interpretation which would drain Article 22(4) to (7) of its contents, if a reasonable alternative construction was possible, it would avoid that result. The Apex Court in Hem Lal Bhandari Vs. State of Sikkim: AIR 1978 SC 765 observed that: ".......it is not permissible in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers. In matter where the liberty of the citizen is involved, it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law." 10. In Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar: (1984) 3 SCC14, Chinnapa Redy, J. observed: "our Constitution does not give a carte blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter... In Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar: (1984) 3 SCC14, Chinnapa Redy, J. observed: "our Constitution does not give a carte blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter... Preventive detention is considered so treacherous and such an anathema to civilized thought and democratic polity that safeguards against undue exercise of the power to detain without trial have been built into the Constitution itself and incorporated as Fundamental Right........when demanded, where there has been any excessive detention, that is, whether the limits set by the Constitution and the Legislature have been transgressed. Preventive detention is not beyond judicial scrutiny." 11. Lord Atkin in a great dissenting judgment (Liversidge Vs. Sir John Anderson) (1942)A.C. at P. 244 declared: ".....amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent......it has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which we are now fighting, that the Judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the Executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law." 12. Deprivation of personal freedom must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objective of the society, specified in the Constitution. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22; certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the Court." The Apex Court in Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that- "......May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the Court." The Apex Court in Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that- "......May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the loss of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus........" (Ref: para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh's case (supra)). 13. No doubt, the doctrine of preventive power of the Administrative/Executive authority constitutionally validates preventive process for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national security, defence of India and relations of India with the foreign power. The Apex Court in Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana & Ors.: (1991) 4 SCC 39 held that - "The law of preventive detention is harsh to the person detained and, therefore, there can be no doubt that it must be strictly construed. Article 22(3) (b) denies to a person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention the protection of clauses (1) and (2) of the said article. Clause (4) thereof enjoins that the preventive detention law must conform to the limitations set out thereunder. Clause (5) of Article 22 reads as under: "22. (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order."(Ref. para 3 of the SCC in Amir Shad Khan's case (supra)). 14. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors.: (1995) 4 SCC 51 observed that while discharging constitutional obligation to protect fundamental right of the people, more specifically right to personal liberty, the Court would not be influenced by the nature of the activity of the detenu. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. Union of India & Ors.: (1995) 4 SCC 51 observed that while discharging constitutional obligation to protect fundamental right of the people, more specifically right to personal liberty, the Court would not be influenced by the nature of the activity of the detenu. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealousy watched and enforced by the Court. 15. In the present case, what the petitioner-detenu sought for is the copy of the Police report mentioned in the impugned detention order, but it is clear from the grounds of detention dated 1.2.2010 that the said Police report is not one of the documents which form the basic grounds of detention. Even then, this Court has to see for the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish copy of the said Police report, the petitioner-detenu who had been furnished with the grounds of detention dated 1.2.2010 had failed to file effective representation, more particularly, because of lack of material particulars and material facts and material documents for filing effective representation. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India in clear terms mentioned what are to be communicated to the petitioner-detenu and what is to be communicated to the petitioner-detenu is only the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. 16. It is clear from the maxim "Expressum Facit Cessare Taciturn" that "when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded". More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench in State of Bombay Vs. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya: AIR 1951 SC157, in the context of Article 22(5) and preventive detention Act (Act No. 4 of 1950) clearly held that "what must be supplied are the grounds on which the order has been made and nothing else. And also further held that vagueness of the grounds of detention is a relative term and it is to be decided on the basis of the fact of case. In other words, as to whether there is vagueness in the grounds of detention is to be decided on the basis of the fact of that case. And also further held that vagueness of the grounds of detention is a relative term and it is to be decided on the basis of the fact of case. In other words, as to whether there is vagueness in the grounds of detention is to be decided on the basis of the fact of that case. What is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenu is that the petitioner-detenu should be informed the conclusion of facts which form the grounds of detention and documents which form the grounds of detention. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya's case (supra) held as follows: ".................We think that the position will be clarified if it is appreciated in the first instance what are the rights given by Art. 22(5). The first part of Art. 22, Cl. (5) gives a right to the detained person to be furnished with "the grounds on which the order has been made" and that has to be done "as soon as may be." The second right given to such person is of being afforded "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order." It is obvious that the grounds for making the order as mentioned above, are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. These grounds, therefore, must be in existence when the order is made. By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detained recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which of the three categories of prejudicial acts the suspended activities of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the "grounds" and they must be supplied. No part of such "grounds" can be held back nor can any more "grounds" be added thereto. What must be supplied are the "grounds on which the order has been made" and nothing less. The second right of being afforded "earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order" is not confined to only a physical opportunity by supplying paper and pen only. In order that a representation can be made the person detained must First have knowledge of the grounds on which the authorities conveyed that they were satisfied about the necessity of making the detention order. It is. In order that a representation can be made the person detained must First have knowledge of the grounds on which the authorities conveyed that they were satisfied about the necessity of making the detention order. It is. therefore, clear that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed to be detained person must be sufficient to attain that object. Ordinarily, the "grounds" in the sense of conclusions drawn by the authorities will indicate the kind of prejudicial act the detenu is suspended of being engaged in and that will be sufficient to enable him to make a representation setting out his innocent activities to dispel the suspicion against him. Of course if the detenu is told about the details of facts besides the grounds he will certainly be in a better position to deal with the same. It is significant that the clause does not say that the "grounds" as well as details of facts on which they are based must be furnished or furnished at one time The law does not prescribe within what time after the grounds are furnished the representation could be made. The time in each case appears deliberately unprovided for expressly, because circumstances vary in each case and make it impossible to fix a particular time for the exercise of each of these two rights." 17. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Naresh Chandra Gangulifor Shri Ram PrasadDas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.: AIR 1959 SC 1335 (V 46 C 188) had considered in threadbare the rights of the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and what are to be informed to the detenu for enabling him to file effective representations. In that case, grounds for detention furnished to the detenu reads as follows: "No. 85 Grounds for detention under clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950). To Sri Ram Prasad Das S/o. Bepin Behari Das, of 6, Muralidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidence by the particulars given below: 1. To Sri Ram Prasad Das S/o. Bepin Behari Das, of 6, Muralidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidence by the particulars given below: 1. That on 13.9.58 you attended a meeting of Eastern Indian Refugee Council held at the Refugee office at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane and vilified Prime Minister of India for his allegedly turning a deaf ear to the untold miseries of the refugees and while referring to the recent agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan you vented feelings of violence against the Prime Minister of India by emphasising that in order to save the refugees and the territories of the Indian Union, Sri Nehru should be murdered, if necessary and so the need of another Nathuram Godse was felt now. 2. That in course of discussion with members of your party on 17.9.58 at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a Present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been called upon the members to build up strong movement against the implementation of Nehru-Noon Pact. You also tried to rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal. 3. That on 26.9.58 you attended another meeting of the South Burtolla Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park, where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youth of the country for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enrol themselves for the said purpose. 4. That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9.10.58 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India. Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supdt. Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supdt. of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible. You are also informed that under Section 10 of the P.O. Act, 1950 (IV of 1950) the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government. Sd. Illegible Commissioner of Police, Calcutta" 18. The detenu took the plea that the grounds mentioned in para 4 is vague inasmuch as there is no material particulars for being clearly understood the charge/ground. The Apex Court clearly held that there is no requirement for recital of details which form the basis of conclusion of fact in para 4 inasmuch as facts mentioned therein are sufficient for the purpose of filing representation. Para 13 of the AIR in Naresh Chandra Ganguli's case (supra) read as follows: "13. The contention raised before the High Court has been repeated before us, that the grounds contained in para 4. are vague and indefinite, not enabling, the person detained to make his representation. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 9, 1958, with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity, have all been stated as clearly as could be expected. But it was argued that it was also necessary to state that details of the plan to be hatched in Delhi. There are several answers to this contention. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. As was observed in the decision of this Court in 1951 SCR 157 at pp. 184 and 185: ( AIR 1951 SC 157 apt. 164) (supra), vagueness is a relative term. Its meaning must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. What may be said to be vague in one case, may not be so in another, and it could not be asserted as a general rule that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. If the statement of facts is capable of being clearly understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make his presentation, it cannot be said that it is vague. Further, it cannot be denied that particulars of what has taken place, can be more definitely stated than those of events which are yet in the offing. In the very nature of things, the main object of the Act is to prevent persons from doing something which comes within the purview of any one of the sub-clauses of Cl. (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act." The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D 'Souza Vs. State of Bombay: AIR 1956 SC 531 had considered and discussed the enabling provisions of the detaining authority, i.e. clause (6) of Article 22 as to whether the disclosure of the facts would be against the public interest and held that it is the authority to take decision whether disclosure of the fact would be against the public interest in case non disclosure of the said fact will not cause prejudice to the detenu in filing effective representation and also that the detenu had been furnished adequate particulars of the grounds of detention to enable proper representation being made. 19. 19. From the foregoing decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court it is clear that what is to be furnished or communicated to the detenu in compliance of the mandates of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is only the grounds of detention and nothing else and also furnishing of grounds of detention is only for enabling the detenu to file effective representation and as to whether or not the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu are sufficient for filing the effective representations. We may also recall the decision of the Apex Court in Khudi Ram Das Vs. State of West Bengal: (1975) 2 SCR 832 : AIR 1975 SC 550 that the constitutional right of life and personal liberty is placed on such a high pedestal by the Apex Court that it is always insisted that whenever there is any deprivation of life or personal liberty, the authority responsible for such deprivation must satisfy the Court that it has acted in accordance with law. This is an area where the Court has been most strict and scrupulous in ensuring observance with the requirement of law, and even where a slightest measure, the Court has not hesitated to strike down the order of detention or to direct the release of the detenu even though the detention may have been valid till the breach occurred. (See: decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India: (1982) SCR 272: AIR 1982 SC 710 . It is, therefore, we look at the records to find out if the Police report mentioned in the impugned detention order, copy of which is sought for by the petitioner-detenu is a vital document required for filing effective representation, even if it is not one of the document which form the basic ground of detention for limited purpose that the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to the petitioner-detenu for filing effective representation has been denied or not. We also reiterate that the Apex Court in a catena of cases including the decisions of the Constitution Benches in the above referred cases held that what is required to see by the Court is that if the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu will be sufficient for filing effective representation. We also reiterate that the Apex Court in a catena of cases including the decisions of the Constitution Benches in the above referred cases held that what is required to see by the Court is that if the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu will be sufficient for filing effective representation. In the present case, the State Government by resorting to clause (6) of the Article 22 of the Constitution had decided not to furnish copy of the said Police report. 20. On bare perusal of the said police report available in the file produced by the learned senior GA, it is nothing but the forwarding letter for forwarding the documents mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention/letter dated 1.2.2010 of the learned District Magistrate, Imphal West, therefore, non furnishing of the copy of the said police report has no adverse consequence of causing prejudice to the petitioner-detenu in filing representation. 21. Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu, as a last attempt to support the case of the petitioner-detenu, strenuously urged that since the petitioner-detenu has not filed any application for bail and also the appellant-accused has been arrested for the first time in connection with the said FIR there is no material for coming to the subjective satisfaction that petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal Courts as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal Courts. The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner-detenu shall effectively answer this point raised by Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu. We again recall the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court made more than half of a century ago in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya's case (supra) that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on some grounds. The question whether such grounds can give rise to the subjective satisfaction required for making the order is outside the scope of the inquiry of the Court. 22. The Apex Court in Sethamilselvi Vs. State of T.N. & Anr.: (2006) 5 SCC 676 (para 10 of the SCC p. 679) held that: "It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. State of T.N. & Anr.: (2006) 5 SCC 676 (para 10 of the SCC p. 679) held that: "It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule'can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various Courts. The appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: (2002) 7 SCC 129 . The factual scenario in that case was entirely different. In fact, five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In that background this Court observed that it was not a "normal" case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant." For the foregoing reasons we are of the firm view that this writ petition is devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed.