JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order No. PSA/116 dated 09.05.2023 issued by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as “the detaining authority”), whereby the petitioner, Mir Hamza S/o late Sh. Alam Din, R/o village Bakrak Colony, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua (for short “the detenue”) has been taken into preventive custody in order to prevent him from causing disruption in pubic peace and tranquility. 2. The impugned detention order has been challenged by the detenue on the grounds that whole of the material forming basis for formulating the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue and as such, the constitutional mandate has not been adhered to by the respondents. It has been further contended that the translated version of the grounds of detention, which are in English language, has not been furnished to the petitioner, who is not well versed with English language. It has been also contended that there is no live and proximate link between the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention and the object of the respondents to place the petitioner under preventive detention. It has further been contended that the petitioner has been presumably taken into preventive detention so as to prevent him from causing disruption in public peace and tranquillity, which is a ground alien to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. Lastly, it has been argued that the petitioner has not been informed about his right to make a representation to the detaining authority thereby violating his vital constitutional right. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavits of the detaining authority and respondent No. 4, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Kathua to contest the petition. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was initially arrested in the year, 2010 for his involvement in FIR No. 233/2010 of Police Station, Rajbagh and thereafter 13 more criminal cases have been registered against him in different Police Stations of District Kathua, which shows that the detenue is a habitual criminal and his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of the public peace. It has been submitted that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been adhered to by the respondents while passing the impugned order of detention. It has been submitted that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been adhered to by the respondents while passing the impugned order of detention. It has also been submitted that all the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated was furnished to the detenue and the contents thereof were explained to him in Hindi/Dogri language, which he fully understands. In order to lend support to their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the detention record produced by the respondents. 5. The first ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been informed about his right to make a representation against the order of detention before the detaining authority. A perusal of the record shows that District Magistrate, Kathua, the detaining authority has given notice of detention to the petitioner vide his communication dated 09.05.2023, whereunder the petitioner has been informed that he may make a representation before the Government against the said order. In terms of said communication, the petitioner has not been informed about his right to make a representation before the District Magistrate, who has passed the impugned order of detention. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act provides that a detention order can be passed by a District Magistrate and Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act provides that when any such order is made by the District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made. It also provides that such an order shall not remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime, the order is approved by the Government. Thus, an order of detention made by a District Magistrate is required to be approved by the Government not later than 12 days from the date of order. 7. In terms of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, power to make an order includes power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules or bye laws. Thus, an authority which is vested with jurisdiction to make an order is empowered to add to, amend, vary or rescind such an order. 7. In terms of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, power to make an order includes power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules or bye laws. Thus, an authority which is vested with jurisdiction to make an order is empowered to add to, amend, vary or rescind such an order. Therefore, the District Magistrate, who is empowered to make the order of detention, is also empowered to revoke it till such time it is not approved by the Government. 8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the impugned detention order was made by the respondent-District Magistrate, Kathua on 09.05.2023 and the same was approved by the Government on 12.05.2023. During this period i.e. from 09.05.2023 to 12.05.2023, District Magistrate, Kathua was vested with jurisdiction to revoke the said order but there is nothing on record to show that the District Magistrate did inform the petitioner about his right to make a representation before the said authority, though he did address a communication to the detenue that he has right to make a representation to the Government. In view of this, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to make a representation before the detaining authority. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tariq Ahmad vs. State of J&K and Ors. 2017 (3) JKJ 684 has, while dealing with a similar issue, held that non-communication of the fact that the detenue can make a representation to the detaining authority, till the detention order is not approved by the Government, would constitute an infraction of a valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as also of the right under Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. It has been further held that such non-communication would invalidate the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed. 10. The next ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has while passing order of detention stated that the detenue is involved in the activities that may disrupt peace of the area and endanger human life with disturbance in public peace and tranquillity. 10. The next ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has while passing order of detention stated that the detenue is involved in the activities that may disrupt peace of the area and endanger human life with disturbance in public peace and tranquillity. The learned counsel has submitted that this is not a ground available for detention of a person under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. 11. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority has recorded that petitioner’s remaining at large is a constant threat to maintenance of public order and that there is every apprehension of creation of law and order situation in the District. From this it is clear that the detaining authority has used both the expressions i.e. “law and order” and “public order” in the grounds of detention. Even in the counter affidavit, the detaining authority has contended that activities of the petitioner may disrupt peace of the area and endanger human life with disturbance in public peace and order. 12. Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act does not include maintenance of law and order as a ground of passing an order of detention. It only includes public order and not law and order as a ground for detention. Law and order and public order are two different concepts. While law and order is a wider term, which includes within it expression “public order”, as such, every act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order may not be an act prejudicial to the public order. A person can be detained under the Public Safety Act, if his activities are prejudicial to the public order, which is one of the grounds of detention under the Act. The detention of a person, whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, is not legally sustainable. The same does not offer a ground for detention under the Act. 13. The detaining authority in the instant case has used the expressions “law and order” and “public order” in the grounds of detention as well as in the order of detention interchangeably. In fact, the expression “disruption of peace and endanger to human life” has also been used in the impugned order of detention as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority. In fact, the expression “disruption of peace and endanger to human life” has also been used in the impugned order of detention as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority. From this, it appears that the detaining authority was not sure as to under which category the activities of the detenue fall. This tentativeness on the part of the detaining authority exhibits non-application of mind on its part, thereby rendering the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, impugned order of detention No. PSA/116 dated 09.05.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 deserves to be quashed and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue from the preventive custody, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 15. The record, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.