ORDER : S.R. Sen, J. 1. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is that, one Shri. K. Shabong, Sub Inspector, Special Cell, East Khasi Hills District lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Pynursla Police Station alleging that he was deputed on 29.07.12 to conduct Naka with the Special Cell Team at Umkrem 'Pyrdiwah Axis'. At about 6:00 a.m., he noticed one person moving suspiciously in the forest area, apprehended him and came to know that he is Mr. Champion Sangma, Chairman of GNLA outfit organization. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered as Pynursla P.S Case No. 25 (7) 2012 u/s. 16 , 38(1) and 38(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 12, I.P. Act was registered. However, bail application was moved which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the accused was finally charge-sheeted. The detenu was also shown arrested in connection with Nongstoin P.S Case No. 9 (2) of 2012 u/s 121A /353 /307 /34 IPC, r/w Section 10 /13 , U.A.(P) Act, 1967 and Section 27(2) of Arms Act and Nonstoin Police Station Case No. 10(2) of 2012 u/s 121A /302 /34 IPC, r/w Section 10/13, U.A.(P) Act 1967 and Section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, by detention order No. EGH/CON. 189 (MPDA)/2013/2 issued by the District Magistrate East Garo Hills Williamnagar dated 29.01.13. The petitioner/accused was detained u/s 3(1) of Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 vide order dated 29.01.13. The Governor of Meghalaya approved the detention and the detenu was also supplied with a copy of the grounds of detention on the same date. The detenu vide representation dated 14.02.13 addressed to the respondent prayed for revocation of the same and finally approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition. 2. The learned counsel Mr. S. Dey appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused argued that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make representation to the Central Government. Secondly, the petitioner's representation before the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate concerned is still remained pending. Therefore, there is total violation of the provision of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments passed in these cases (1) Hansaben Jayantilal Shah v. Union of India and Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 148 . Therefore, there is total violation of the provision of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments passed in these cases (1) Hansaben Jayantilal Shah v. Union of India and Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 148 . (2) Vimalchand Jawantraj Jain v. Shri Pradhan and Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 401 ( AIR 1979 SC 1501 , 1979 Cri LJ 1131) . (3) Rongjam Momin v. Union of India and Ors., 2005 (1) GLT 173 . 3. The learned counsel further contended that the detention order does not specifically speaks reasons of detention or grounds of detention, so the entire detention is illegal and may be quashed. 4. On the other hand the learned senior Addl. PP Mr. K Khan who appeared on behalf of the State respondent submitted that there is nothing wrong in the detention order nor any provision has been violated. He also argued that from the additional affidavit, it is clear that no representation has been placed before the detaining authority. Secondly, the detenu was informed about his right to make his representation to the State Government and the same was disposed of in time. The learned counsel further contended that the representation was filed on 14.02.13, the detention order was confirmed on 15.03.13 and the representation was disposed of on 26.03.13. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the State, so detention order may not be interfered with. In support of his submission he relied on D.M. Nagaraja v. Government of Karnataka and Ors., 2011 (10) SCC 215 ( AIR 2012 SC 295 ) . 5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties referred above, crux issues found involved in this case are; (i) whether the detenu was informed about his rights to make representation to the State or Central Government (ii) whether any representation is made which has not been disposed of by the detaining authority and (iii) whether detention order does not speaks reasons for detention. 6. 6. I have perused the detention order dated 29.01.13 at Page-26 (Annexure-III) and the same is reproduced herein below: ORDER u/s 3(1) OF THE MEGHALAYA PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1995 Whereas, a new militant outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) has come into being in Garo Hills in Meghalaya of which Shri Champion R. Sangma and Shri Sohan D. Shira are the originators, mentors and founders; Whereas, this militant organization has unleashed a reign of terror on the peace loving citizenry by executing criminal activities like extortion, kidnapping for ransom, ruthless murders of businessmen and traders, criminal intimidation to create a fear psychosis to suit their nefarious designs; Whereas, this organization GNLA has been formed with the intention of waging war against the constitutionally formed and elected sovereign Govt. of the day for creation of a Garo national entity and for which they are training gullible and susceptible poor, unemployed, rural youth; Whereas, it is circumstance-wise proved that Shri Champion R. Sangma, S/o. Late Bidonsing N. Marak of Songsak Bolsalgittim, East Garo Hills who is now in judicial custody is Chairman of GNLA who has contributed in his might in the furtherance of the devious designs of the militant organization GNLA and is of dangerous and desperate character who is an active threat to public order and public security; Whereas, his repeated commission of crimes at the instance of his superiors in the militant organization reflect his incorrigible intent to foment terror and points towards his indifference and total disregard to life, liberty of innocent citizens and their peace and security; Whereas, he has been arrested by police for his involvement in various unlawful activities and crimes like extortion, dacoity, kidnapping, murder and robbery etc. with deadly weapons for ransom, disruption of public order etc. for which police have implicated him in: 1. Williamnagar P. S. Case 21 (05) 10 u/s. 353 /307 /34 , IPC r/w Sec. 27 Arms Act and Sec. 5, ES Act. 2. Williamnagar P. S. Case No. 43(09) 10 u/s. 120B /121 /121A /122 /364A /384 /353 /307 , IPC r/w Sec. 27 , Arms & Sec. 5 ES, Act. 3. Williamnagar P. S. Case No. 09(01)11 u/s. 121 /121A /121(B) /122 /364A /353 /307 , IPC r/w Sec. 27 , Arms Act & Sec. 5 ES, Act. 4. Williamnagar PS. 2. Williamnagar P. S. Case No. 43(09) 10 u/s. 120B /121 /121A /122 /364A /384 /353 /307 , IPC r/w Sec. 27 , Arms & Sec. 5 ES, Act. 3. Williamnagar P. S. Case No. 09(01)11 u/s. 121 /121A /121(B) /122 /364A /353 /307 , IPC r/w Sec. 27 , Arms Act & Sec. 5 ES, Act. 4. Williamnagar PS. Case No. 90(12)11 u/s. 120B /121 /121A /122 /353 /307 /34 , IPC. 5. Williamnagar P.S. Case No. 13(4)10 u/s. 365 /34 , IPC. 6. Mendipathar P.S. Case No. 25(4)10 u/s. 395 , IPC r/w Sec. 25(1-a)(1-b) , Arms Act. 7. Williamnagar P.S. Case No. 18(4) 10 u/s. 384 /511 , IPC. 8. Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 28(11)11 u/s. 120B /121 /121A /122 /353 /326 /307 /302 /427 , IPC r/w Sec. 25(1A)(1B) , Arms Act. Whereas, I am satisfied that if Shri Champion R. Sangma is allowed to remain at large, he would act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in the district and would contribute in consolidation of the militant organization which shall be a constant threat to the peace, prosperity and security of the law abiding and peace loving citizenry of the district and the State and unleash mayhem and unspeakable atrocities on the people by indulging in murder, criminal intimidation, extortion, kidnapping for ransom in furtherance of their treacherous designs; NOW, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred upon me u/s 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995, I, Shri Vijay Kumar Mantri, IAS, District Magistrate, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar do hereby direct forthwith that the person of Shri Champion R. Sangma shall be taken into preventive detention with immediate effect and that the detention shall be at District Jail, Shillong, East Khasi Hills until further orders. Further, Shri Champion R. Sangma shall, in accordance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with section 8(1) of MPDA, 1995 have every right to make a representation against the order of detention to the Govt. addressed to the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar and the Principal Secretary in Political Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court this 29th day of January, 2013. Sd/- (Vijay Kumar Mantri) District Magistrate East Garo Hills District Williamnagar 7. I have also perused the grounds of detention at Pages 28 & 29. addressed to the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar and the Principal Secretary in Political Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court this 29th day of January, 2013. Sd/- (Vijay Kumar Mantri) District Magistrate East Garo Hills District Williamnagar 7. I have also perused the grounds of detention at Pages 28 & 29. On perusal of both the detention order and grounds of detention, I found that detention order is speaking one. Detention order and grounds of detention cannot be considered and read in isolation, they are part and parcel of each other. Therefore, we require to considering and read both i.e. detention order and grounds of detention together. From the last Paragraph of grounds of detention, it is found mentioned that the petitioner/accused has already been informed about his right to make representation to the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar as well as the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya. Therefore, I cannot say that, he has not been informed about his right to make representation to the authority concerned. 8. Now the question comes whether the petitioner/accused has the right to make representation both to the State Government as well as to the Central Government under Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995. The answer is available in Section 15 of the said Act and the same is reproduced herein below: 15. Revocation of detention order-- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 35 of the Meghalaya Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1972 a detention order made by a District Magistrate or by the empowered officer may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the State Government and, in case of a detention order made by the State Government or by the Central Government. (2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar making of a fresh detention order against same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of such revocation or expiry and on which the State Government, a District Magistrate or empowered officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made. 9. 9. On bare perusal of the said Section, it appears that the detention order issued by the District Magistrate or empower authority may be revoke or modify by the State Government and in case of the detention order made by the State Government or Central Government. So, here we find that the word "OR" has been incorporated in the said Section, the word "OR" connotes either, so, it is not necessary to make representation before both the State Government and Central Government. 10. In my humble understanding, once the State Government rejects the representation, there is no scope for further representation to the Central Government u/s 15 of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995. This gets further support from the Letter dated 20.01.11 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India addressed to the Principal Secretary, Political Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. The said letter is reproduced herein below. No. 11/15050/01/2011- NSA Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi, dated the 20th January, 2011 To The Principal Secretary/Commissioner & Secretary, Political Department, Government of Meghalaya, Meghalaya Secretariat, Shillong, Subject: Representation from Shri Albin Ch. Momin under Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act. Sir, I am directed to refer to letter No. DJJ-08/2004/Pt.IV/94, dated 21st December, 2010 from the Superintendent District Jail, Jowai forwarding representation of the detenu Shri Albin Ch. Momin under Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act and to convey that on examination it is found that in the detention order it has been mentioned that the detenu can submit his representation to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, whereas the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 does not provide for the same when the detention order has been issued by the District Magistrate u/s 3(1) of the Act. Section 15(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 provides that in case the detention order has been issued by the District Magistrate, it is for the State Government of Meghalaya to consider the representation. Therefore, the representation received from Shri Albin Ch. Momin is being returned herewith for appropriate action. 2. I am further directed to say that all District Magistrates in the State of Meghalaya may be suitably advised of the above provisions of the MPDA Act, 1995. 3. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Smt. L. P. Srivastava) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel. No. 2461 0467 11. 2. I am further directed to say that all District Magistrates in the State of Meghalaya may be suitably advised of the above provisions of the MPDA Act, 1995. 3. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Smt. L. P. Srivastava) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel. No. 2461 0467 11. From the contents of the said letter, it is further clear that the Central Government is also of the view that, under Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 when a person has been detained, it is the State Government to have a final say. 12. On further perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar at Para 2 which is reproduced hereinbelow: 2. That the answering respondent states that in the Detention Order dated 29.01.13, it was clearly informed to the petitioner that petitioner has right to make a representation against the order to the Govt. addressed to the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar and the Principal Secretary in Political Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. The answering respondent states that the petitioner has not filed independent representation before the answering respondent, as such the statement of the writ petitioner that the representation filed by the writ petitioner has not been disposed of by answering respondent is incorrect statement of facts. 13. On perusal of the affidavit, it appears that, no independent representation has been moved before the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar against the said additional affidavit, no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the correctness or incorrectness of the said affidavit. Therefore, additional affidavits filed by the District Magistrate stands. 14. Therefore, after going through the records considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel as well as laws referred above, I do not find any error in the detention order and its subsequent proceedings. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476 ( AIR 1991 SC 574 : 1991 Cri LJ 790) has clearly held that the authority has no constitutional duty to consider the representation made by the detenu before the order of confirmation of the detention order. There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5) of Article 22 , much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention. There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5) of Article 22 , much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention. In other words, the competent authority can consider the representation only after the order of confirmation and as such, the contention raised by the appellant as if there was delay in consideration, is baseless and liable to be rejected. As pointed out above, the counsel for the appellant did not raise any objection as regards to the same." (reported in : 2011 (10) SCC 215 ) ( AIR 2012 SC 295 ) . 16. Further, the judgments relied on by the petitioner's counsel, on my humble understanding those judgments are not matching or applicable in the present facts and circumstances of this instant case in hand. Issues answered accordingly. For the reasons discussed above, I find no scope to interfere with the impugned detention order dated 29.01.13, hence, this instant writ petition is rejected and accordingly stands disposed of.