JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 4.11.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West directing detention of the petitioner in exercise of powers, under sub-section 3 of Section of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. It is alleged in the grounds detention that the petitioner joined a banned organization namely Peoples' Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, Progressive(PREPAK-Pro) as a member in the first part of 2014 through one of its important Member. After joining the said organization, the petitioner is alleged to have associated himself in extortion of huge amount of money from shop keepers, businessmen, proprietor of private firms, government employees etc. located at Moreh and Thoubal area. It appears from the grounds of detention that the petitioner was arrested on 24.7.2014 from Paona International Market and one mobile phone was recovered from him and on the same day at about 3.45 p.m. 3 hand grenades with detonators and 2 curved wooden logs were also seized at his instance from the house of one K. Gandhi Singh. Thereafter, he was handed over to the Officer in-charge, City P.S. with a written report. An FIR No. 118(7)/2014 City P.S. was registered for commission of offence u/s. 20/17UA(P)Act & 5 Expl. Subs. Act. The District Magistrate, Imphal West passed the order of detention while the petitioner was in judicial custody solely on the ground that he should be prevented from committing further prejudicial activities. 3. Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of detention basically on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the representation made by the petitioner to the Advisory Board was not considered independently by the Advisory Board and the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. Second ground of challenge is that State Government, while confirming the order of detention, directed detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months at a time which is not permissible under law. 4. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the second ground of challenge as the said question of law is now the subject matter in a Review Petition pending before this Court and he challenged the order of detention only on the first ground as stated above. 5. 4. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the second ground of challenge as the said question of law is now the subject matter in a Review Petition pending before this Court and he challenged the order of detention only on the first ground as stated above. 5. Undisputedly, the impugned order of detention was passed on 4.11.2014 by the District Magistrate, Imphal West. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 6.11.2014 and in paragraph 6 of the ground of detention, the petitioner was informed that he has the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention. It was also informed that the petitioner has the right to make the representation to the detaining authority within 12 days from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the State Government whichever is earlier. The petitioner was also intimated that the representation is to be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal West and if any such representation is made, it would be placed before the Advisory Board. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though a representation was made to the Advisory Board, such representation was never considered by the Advisory Board and consequently the impugned order of detention is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1090 . The Apex Court held in the said decision that the dual obligation of consideration of the detenu's representation by the Advisory Board and independently by the detaining authority flows from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Even if one representation is made to the detaining authority, it cannot be said that the detaining authority is relieved of his obligation merely because the representation is addressed to the Advisory Board instead of the detaining authority and submitted to the Advisory Board during pendency of the reference before it. The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Moosa Husein Sanghar v. State of Gujarat & Ors reported in AIR 1994 SC 1479 . The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Moosa Husein Sanghar v. State of Gujarat & Ors reported in AIR 1994 SC 1479 . The reported case was a case of detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Though that case is not exactly similar but more or less same view was taken by the Apex Court so far as consideration of representation is concerned. 6. In the present case, the learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the detaining authority as well as before the Advisory Board. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Advisory Board considered every aspect of the matter including the representation and confirmed the order of detention. 7. We have perused the order passed by the Advisory Board Dt. 28.11.2014 and found from the report that the Board had gone though order of detention, grounds of detention and its supporting documents before submitting the report. The petitioner was also heard in person in Manipuri language. The relevant portion of the report is quoted below: "We have heard the detenu in person in the language i.e. Manipuri. The Board has explained to the detenu the facts in the grounds of detention. We are briefly recording his replies with our findings" 8. Though there is no specific statement in the report that the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Board, it is clear from the report that the petitioner was heard personally in Manipur language and reply given by him were taken note by the Advisory Board and report was submitted. Since the petitioner was heard in person and his statements were considered by the Board, even if we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu's representation was not specifically considered, it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner having been heard in person and his statements having been considered by the Advisory Board, while submitting the report, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even for non consideration of his representation specifically. 9. The petitioner having been heard in person and his statements having been considered by the Advisory Board, while submitting the report, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even for non consideration of his representation specifically. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner having abandoned the second ground of challenge and no further ground having been urged before this Court challenging the order of detention, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same.