JUDGMENT : J.C. Shah, J. The petitioner was directed by an order dated April, 18, 1968 made in exercise of the power under Section 3, sub-section (1)(a)(iii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 to be detained. He was taken in custody on April 20, 1968 and immediately thereafter grounds written in the English Language and script were served upon him. On April 26, 1968, a translation of the grounds in Bengali language and script was served upon the petitioner. 2. The petitioner moved an application in the High Court of Calcutta under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus but that application was rejected. 3. The petitioner has moved this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He has raised certain contentions about the vagueness of the grounds set out in the statement of grounds supplied to him. It is, however, unnecessary to go into that question, because, in our judgment, the requirements of Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act have not been complied with. Section 7 of the Act provides : "When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government." 4. The petitioner says that he is not conversant with the English language. That position appears to have been accepted by the District Magistrate and on receiving information that the petitioner was not conversant with the English language, a translation of the grounds in Bengali language was served upon the petitioner. But unfortunately it was not served within the period provided by Section 7(1) of the Act. 5. This Court has held in a recent Judgment Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 43, that in default of strict compliance with the terms of Section 7 the detention of a period under the preventive Detention Act is invalid. The provision relating to service of the grounds is not a mere formality. 5. This Court has held in a recent Judgment Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 43, that in default of strict compliance with the terms of Section 7 the detention of a period under the preventive Detention Act is invalid. The provision relating to service of the grounds is not a mere formality. The grounds must be such that the petitioner may be able effectively to make a representation submitting his explanation relating to those grounds and that necessarily implies that the grounds when communicated in writing must be in a language with which the detenu is familiar, if he is literate. In the present case, the petitioner not being conversant with the English language, the service of the grounds on April 20, 1968 served no purpose and the grounds served on April 26, 1968 in the Bengali language being served more than five days after the date of detention, did not comply with the requirements of the Statute. 6. Mr. A.K. Sen appearing on behalf of the Government of West Bengal has contended that there is no clear averment made in the petition that the petitioner was not conversant with the English language. We are unable to agree with that contention. The petitioner had stated in paragraph 6 of his petition that he "does not understand English at all." There is no evidence which may support the contention that the petitioner was conversant with the English language and he has made a false statement in the Petition. 7. In the circumstances it must be held that requirements of Section 7(i) of the Act have not been complied with. The petitioner is ordered to be discharged. Petition accepted.