H. N. SETH, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner Karam Singh has questioned the validity of his detention, under section 3 of the National Security Act with authorized by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 25th October, 1982. The petitioner was actually arrested in pursuance of the impugned order on 26th October, 1982. The grounds for his detention were also served upon him at the time of his arrest. In due course a representation against the detention order was made under the signature of the petitioner and eventually the State Government after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board confirmed the order of his detention. ( 2 ) WHILE the matter was pending before the Advisory Board the petitioner moved an application for a writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity of the detention order by means of a writ petition No. 12744 of 1982 filed on 10th November, 1982. That petition was eventually dismissed on 16th December, 1982. While dismissing that petition the bench observed that an application supported by at affidavit had been moved in which it had been stated that the order of detention had been revoked by the State Government on 9-12-1982. The petition had accordingly become anfractuous and was-dismissed accordingly. ( 3 ) THE petitioner then moved the present petition contending that the application on the basis of which the earlier petition was dismissed had been moved under misapprehension and that the order of the petitioners detention had in fact not been revoked. This submission by the petitioner appears to be correct inasmuch as the case of the respondent also is that the order for petitioners detention does not stand revoked. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner claims that the order for petitioners detention stands vitiated inasmuch as he has not been afforded proper opportunity for making a representation against the grounds for his detention, as contemplated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. In paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner stated that he is an illiterate person. He neither knows Hindi nor English language. He only knows little bit of Gurmukhi which is his language. The order as well as the grounds for his detention were in Hindi. In paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner stated that he is an illiterate person. He neither knows Hindi nor English language. He only knows little bit of Gurmukhi which is his language. The order as well as the grounds for his detention were in Hindi. At the time of his arrest petitioner informed the officer concerned that he neither could read nor write Hindi and as such he was not in a position to understand the rounds. He specifically brought this fact to the notice of the jail authorities on 27- 10-1982. But the jail authorities did not provide him with the Gurmukhi version of grounds and other material relied upon by the detaining authority. We may take it that when in paragraph 7 the petitioner stated that he did not know Hindi, what he really meant was that he was not conversant with Devnagri script. In paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit the District Magistrate merely stated that after the grounds of detention and material in support thereof were served upon the petitioner by Sub-Inspector of Police Station Hapur on 26th October, 1982, the Sub Inspector made a note that the contents of the papers served upon the petitioner had been read over and explained to him. The respondents do not controvert the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner is not conversant with the Devnagri script and the only script with which he is conversant, is Gurmukhi. It is not the case of the respondents that any transliteration of the material furnished alongwith the grounds of detention as ever supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to make a representation. A copy of the grounds served upon the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition which indicates that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was based on as many as three incidents each of which had been described in one full escape type written paper. A copy of the grounds served upon the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition which indicates that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was based on as many as three incidents each of which had been described in one full escape type written paper. ( 5 ) IN the case of Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and another the Supreme Court has observed at in such a case where the order served on the appellant ran into fourteen typed pages an referred to his activities over a period of thirteen years beside referring to a large number of court proceedings concerning him and other persons who were alleged to be his associates, mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him of the translation in script and language which he understood would in our judgment, amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. Again in the case of Nainmal Pratap Mal Shah v. Union of India and others the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were in English language which the detenu did not know or understand and no transliterated script was supplied to him. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate Cuttack and another (supra) and held that the detention in such circumstances stands vitiated as being in contravention of the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nafisa Khalifa Chanem v. Union of India and other. ( 6 ) IT, therefore, does appear that inasmuch as the detenu who did not know Hindi language; and who was converted only with Gurmukhi script was not supplied by transliteration of the grounds of his detention and material relied in support thereof, in Gurmukhi script, he has been deprived of a proper opportunity of making an effective representation contemplated by Article 22 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents invited our attention to the fact that a representation had in fact been made to the State Government under the signature of the petitioner wherein various grounds relied upon by the District Magistrate had been dealt with and contended that this shows that the proper opportunity to make the representation, contemplated by Article 22 of the Constitution had, in fact, been made available to the petitioner. According to him in such circumstances it should not be held that the petitioners detention has been vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Article 22 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) WE have perused the representation said to have been made under the signature of the petitioner. There presentation which is an English language has been drafted in legal language. In para 8 of the petition the petitioner asserted that when his request for being furnished with the ground in Gurmukhi was not accepted by the jail authorities, he requested one of his relatives to get a representation drafted by a lawyer namely Sri K. K. Pahwa. The representation was accordingly drafted by Sri K. K. Pahwa which was forwarded to the State Government. This averment made in para 8 of the petitioner has not been controverter in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It appears that when the petitioner could not follow what was contained in the grounds served upon him, he handed it over to his relative who got the representation drafted by a counsel. What had been written in the representation must have been written under the instructions from petitioners relative and not under instruction from the detenu himself. There is absolutely no material to indicate that after the lawyer drafted the representation either the grounds for petitioners detention or the representation drafted by the lawyer was translated and explained to the petitioner. It appears that the detenu merely signed the representation without understanding its contents. In the circumstances, merely because a representation on behalf of the petitioner had been drafted by a lawyer under instructions from close relation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had, in fact, been made aware of the precise grounds for his detention. It appears that the detenu merely signed the representation without understanding its contents. In the circumstances, merely because a representation on behalf of the petitioner had been drafted by a lawyer under instructions from close relation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had, in fact, been made aware of the precise grounds for his detention. The grounds for his detention do not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner in the script indicated by him and as such has been precluded from making a proper representation. ( 9 ) IN the result, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases cited above we are of opinion that there has been contravention of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India in as much as no proper opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to make his representation against the grounds on which the order for his detention was passed and this has the effect of rendering his detention illegal. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order dated 26th October, 1982 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut and to release him from custody forth-with unless his detention is otherwise required in connection with some other valid authority. Petition allowed. .