JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - The Petitioner challenges the order of detention dated March 9,1968, passed under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act No. 4 of 1950) which was confirmed by the Advisory Board as communicated to him by an order of Government dated May 25, 1968. By our order dated July 9, 1968, we allowed the petition and directed the release of the Petitioner. We now proceed to give the reasons for our order. 2. The alleged grounds on which the order of detention was made were that the Petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as evident from the particulars given therein. The Petitioner's case is that he had no reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation inasmuch as the grounds communicated to him are vague and indefinite. There are as many as 6 grounds including grounds Nos. 2, 3 and 6 set out below: 2. Confidential enquiry of O.I.C., Jaleswar P.S. on 17-2-1968 revealed that you smuggled rice last year and have been trying to smuggle this year also through your associates. 3. One Bibhuti Senapati of Ambiliatha reported in writing at he police station to the effect that on 20-2-1968 he found in the evening some bullock carts going to West Bengal from village Ambiliatha with load of rice. Some time after, he found your associate Nityananda Patra and Jhadeswar Dey Dear the cartloads. ... ... ... ... ... 6. Reports received from various sources and also confidential enquiries made by responsible officers have brought to light that you with the support of your agents/associates secretly formed a gang and have been smuggling rice and wheat products to West Bengal by trucks and also by train on different routes escaping vigilance by check gates. 3. In our opinion these grounds are vague. Since the detenue is not placed before a Magistrate and has any a right of being supplied the grounds of detention with a view to his making a representation to the Advisory Board, the grounds must not be vague or indefinite and must afford a real opportunity to make a representation against the detention. In this case at least three of the grounds-as quoted above are vague. In this case at least three of the grounds-as quoted above are vague. Such a, case is covered by decisions laying down that if the grounds are not sufficiently precise and do not furnish details for the purpose of making effective representation, the detention can be questioned It is up to the detaining authority to make his meaning clear beyond doubt without leaving the person detained to his own resource for interpreting the grounds. On the question whether one or two vague grounds could not affect the validity of detention where there are other sufficiently clear and definite grounds (if any) to support the detention, the settled position in law is that the detenues have the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court to be furnished with particulars of the grounds of detention sufficient to enable him to make a representation which, on being considered, may give relief to him. The Supreme Court have expressed the opinion that this constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect to each of the grounds communicated to the person detained subject of course to the claim of privilege under Clause (6) of Article 22 Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj Vs. The State of Delhi and Others, and Rameshwarlal Patwari v. State of Bihar 1968 S.C.D. 460. 4. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the Petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. There will be no order as to costa. Acharya, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed