JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - This petition has been moved by Latoori Singh for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus praying that an order or direction be issued to opposite party no. 2 to release the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign ; Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. He was detained by an order passed by the State Government dated 18-11-1981. The order of detention is Annexure 3 to the writ petition which was served on the petitioner on 25-11-1981. Along with the detention order the petitioner was also served with copy of the grounds of detention contained in Annexure 4, copy of recovery memo Annexure 5, copy of the statement of the petitioner Annexure 6 and intelligence reports Annexures 8 and 9. It may be noted that annexure 6, is in Hindi and annexures 5, 7, 8 and 9 are in English. On 3-12-1981 the petitioner submitted his representation to the State Government which is annexure 11 to the writ petition. It is however stated on behalf of the opposite parties that representation is dated 10-12-1981. The date is immaterial for the purposes of the decision of the case. In para 4 of the representation the petitioner stated that he is conversant with ordinary Hindi and is ignorant of English language. It is also stated that the recovery memo and other documents are in English with which he is not conversant. On 12-12-1981 the representation was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the State Government through the District Registrars. The said representation as received by the State Govt, on 5-1-1982 along with the comments of the district magistrate dated 28-12-1981. The representation was sent to the Advisory Board on 7-1-1982. A perusal of the record indicates that on 9-1-1982 a second representation was presented. The State Government by order dated 11-1-1981 rejected the representation and communicated the rejection to the Advisory Board on 11-12-1981. On 8-1-1982 the State Govt, confirmed the detention of the petitioner. 2. A number of points were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We refrain to deal with all the points as we propose to decide the writ petition one by one of the grounds urged before us. 3. On 8-1-1982 the State Govt, confirmed the detention of the petitioner. 2. A number of points were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We refrain to deal with all the points as we propose to decide the writ petition one by one of the grounds urged before us. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's detention is illegal on the ground that he had no effective opportunity to represent his case before the proper authority. In this respect reference was made to Article 22 of the Constitution of India which provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Article 22 (5) provides that : - "When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order." The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborates his submission by saying that mere service of grounds of detention is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India in regard of representation. The material on the basis of which the detention order has been passed constitutes integral part of the grounds of detention and if some of the documents which form part of the ground of detention are in a language with which the petitioner is not conversant, then it cannot be said that, the petitioner had an effective opportunity to represent his case before the proper authority. In support of his submission reliance was placed on Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975 SCC (Cri.) 435) : ( AIR 1975 SC 550 ). While considering the scope of Article 22 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court observed that communication of the grounds of detention is intended to subserve the purpose of enabling the detenu to make an effective representation. While considering the scope of Article 22 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court observed that communication of the grounds of detention is intended to subserve the purpose of enabling the detenu to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court on this aspect observed as follows (at P. 554) : - "If this be the true reason for providing that the grounds of which the order of detention is made should be communicated to the detenu, it is obvious that the 'grounds' mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based." Reference was also made in this connection to the case of Shalini Soni v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 431 ). In this decision Chinnappa Reddy J. observed as follows "Grounds" in Article 22 (5) do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which led to such actual inferences. The "grounds" must be self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Therefore copies of documents to which reference is made in the "grounds" must be supplied to the detenu as part of the "grounds". The failure to communicate the factual material as a part of the "grounds" would amount to non-communication of grounds on which the order of detention has been made and thus would infringe Article 22 (5)." The Hon'ble Judge further observed that : - "The Constitution and the statute cast a duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu. Therefore, the grounds communicated to the detenu must reveal the whole of the factual material considered by the detaining authority and not merely the inferences of fact arrived at by the detaining authority; secondly, an opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention contemplated by Article 22 (5) necessarily implies that the detenu is informed of all that has been taken into account against him in arriving at the decision to detain him. It means that the detenu is to be informed not merely of the inferences of fact but of all the factual materials which have led to the inferences of fact. It means that the detenu is to be informed not merely of the inferences of fact but of all the factual materials which have led to the inferences of fact. If the detenu is not to be so informed the opportunity so solemnly guaranteed by the Constitution becomes reduced to an exercise in futility." The decision rendered by Chinnappa Reddy, J. was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamla v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1981 SC 814 ). Justice S. M. Fazl Ali observed as follows (at p. 816) : - "The documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention form an integral part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention" A close analysis of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that along with the order of detention the petitioner has to be informed of the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the order of detention is passed. In this view of the matter the documents accompanying the order of detention constitute an integral purl of the grounds of detention and in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation to proper authority it is necessary that he should be apprised of the facts and circumstances which have led to his detention. 4. Another principle equally well settled is that the grounds are required to be furnished in a language which is understood by a detenu and this requirement is not limited to only where the grounds are communicated in Hindi. If a detenu is not conversant with English language, the supply of grounds in the language is vitiated. This view finds support by Surjeet Singh v. Union of India (1981 SCC (Cri) 535) : ( AIR 1981 SC 1153 ) Koshal., J. after discussing a number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, observed as follows (at P. 1154) : - "As already pointed out, the grounds of detention were supplied to the two petitioners in the English language, a language with which they were not conversant. The service of the grounds on them in that manner could not be considered under the circumstances to be effective communication to them thereof so as to afford to them a real opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention." In Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India (1980 SCC (Cri) 846 : ( AIR 1980 SC 1751 ) the detention of the detenu was challenged on the ground that the grounds of detention were in English Language, a language which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds were not explained to him. A specific ground was taken by the detenu before the Supreme Court that he did not know English nor any translation of English was served on him. This allegation was denied on behalf of the respondent and in the counter affidavit it was stated that grounds were explained. It was stated that one A. K. Sharma had explained the detenu the order of detention. The Supreme Court observed that if the grounds were explained by Mr. Sharma, then an affidavit of Mr. Sharma should have been filed to show that he had actually explained the contents of the order of detention. This principle was reiterated in another decision reported in Nainmal Pratap Mai Shah v. Union of India (1980 SCC (Cri.) 987) :( AIR 1980 SC 2129 ). 5. In the instant case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The said affidavit has been sworn by Mr. R. P. Sinha, Joint Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U. P. Government, Lucknow. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit he has stated that the petitioner did not ask for any Hindi version of Annexures 8 and 9 and if he would have asked for Hindi version the same would have been supplied to him. It may be noted that the counter-affidavit is absolutely silent on the question whether, although the documents were in English, they were explained to the detenu or riot. The fact that the detenu did not ask for the supply of Hindi version does not in any way improve the situation. It was the duty of the opposite parties to have supplied the order of detention and the relevant documents accompanying grounds of detention in a language which the detenu could understand. The fact that the detenu did not ask for the supply of Hindi version does not in any way improve the situation. It was the duty of the opposite parties to have supplied the order of detention and the relevant documents accompanying grounds of detention in a language which the detenu could understand. He has expressly stated in his representation that he is not conversant with the English language and hence either Hindi version of the documents should have been supplied to the petitioner or the documents should have been explained to the detenu and an affidavit of the person who explained the contents of documents should have been filed. In view of what has been stated above it is obvious that the petitioner had no opportunity of making effective representation. 6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground that he did not get adequate opportunity to represent his case before the State Government as contemplated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be released at once unless his detention is required in connection with some other case.