VISHNU SAHAI, J. - (1.) '' Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -detenu Rakesh alias Pappu Yadav has impugned the order dated 20 -11 -2001 passed by the second respondent Mr. Rajneesh Dubey, District Magistrate, Jhansi detaining him under Sub -Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act. The detention order along -with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 20 -11 -2001, was served on the petitioner -detenu on 20 -11 -2001 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Anne -xures 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.
(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the petitioner -detenu prompting the second respondent to pass the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure -2). Since, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on grounds 33(g) and 33(s) and for the adjudication of the said grounds a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner -detenu is not necessary, we are not adverting to them. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Grounds 33(g) and 33(s), in sum and substance, are that the detaining authority did not apprise to the petitioner -detenu in the grounds of detention that he had a right to make a representation to him within 12 days of the date of issuance of the detention order or approval by the State Government, whichever was earlier. Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner -detenu invited our attention to the last but one para of the grounds of detention wherein the petitioner has been communicated that he could make a representation to the detai -ning authority. The said para reads thus : - Aap Apna Abhyavedan Zila Magistrate, Jhansi Ko Preshit Bhi Kar Sakte Hain, Jo Varishth Adhikshak, Zila Karagar, Jhansi Ke Madh -yam Se Preshit Hoga Or Zila Magistrate, Jhansi Ko Sambodhit Hoga.  Mr. Rishad Murtaza urged that a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that what has been conveyed to the petitioner -detenu was that if he so wanted, he could make a representation, and not that he had a right to make a representation. Mr. Murtaza urged that the expressions that the petitioner -detenu could make a representation and that he had a right to make a representation are entirely different in connotation. He contended, that in view of the former expression a detenu may or may not make representation, but in that of latter a detenu would invariably make a representation.
(3.) MR . Jyotindra Mishra appe -aring for respondents 1, 2 and 3 does not dispute that what has been conveyed to the petitioner -detenu in the grounds of detention is that if he so wanted, he could make a representation, and not that he had a right to make a representation.;