Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to secure the liberty of one V. Raja, son of Velu Servai who is detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA. Though there may not be necessity to elaborately delineate the facts, we would like to point out that the order of detention has come to be made on 9th July, 1982, taking into account also the involvement of the detenu on a previous occasion, in respect of which, there were proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Ground No. 8 of the grounds of detention reads as follows: "You were also involved in a seizure, of radio cassette recorder, Cassette tapes valued Rs. 8,000 by Customs, Rameswaram, on 10th October, 1981. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 200 on you in this case in his order COR. N. 95/81-82, dated 11th October, 1981, and you had paid the penalty on the same day." Further, in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention, it has been averred as follows: "Further penalty imposed on you under the Customs Act, 1962, in an earlier case has not deterred you from your prejudicial activities. Unless deterrent action is taken to detain you under the COFEPOSA Act. 1974, you will not be prevented from your smuggling activities." Thus, it is dear that the involvement of the detenu, in October, 1981, under the Customs Act, 1962, did weigh with the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there should be an order of detention under COFEPOSA. This is definitely one of the constituent facts and materials that went in to make up the mind of the statutory functionary, and the documents relating to the same should be furnished to the detenu in an effective manner, so as to enable him to make effective representation against the order of detention. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, ground (c) has been taken as follows: "The grounds of detention is violative of the constitutional provisions contained under Article 22 (5). The grounds of detention specifically rely upon and refer to a penalty said to have been passed in COR No. 95 of 1981-82, dated 11th October, 1981. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, ground (c) has been taken as follows: "The grounds of detention is violative of the constitutional provisions contained under Article 22 (5). The grounds of detention specifically rely upon and refer to a penalty said to have been passed in COR No. 95 of 1981-82, dated 11th October, 1981. A translated copy in Tamil of the said document has not been given to the petitioner. The documents given to the petitioner do not contain the abovesaid document in Tamil. The petitioner does not know English. He had no formal education. He was handicapped in making an effective representation. Since the above important and basic document has not been given in Tamil, it cannot be said that the grounds of detention had been communicated in full to the petitioner. This is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22 (5). The respondent has an obligation to communicate all the documents and statements in a language known to the detent within 5 days of the arrest or in exceptional circumstances, that too for the reasons recorded in writing within 15 days in the order of detention. In the instant case this constitutional mandate has been violated. This has rendered the entire detention order illegal. The petitioner therefore may have to be released on this ground alone." In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, there is no denial of the fact that the detenu does not know English language and it is admitted that there was a need to furnish Tamil translation of the grounds of detention to the detenu. There is no denial that Tamil translation of the earlier proceedings of October, 1981, under the Customs Act, 1962, was not furnished to the detenu. On the other hand, there is a justification expressed for what has been done and this lacuna is sought to be explained by stating that the detenue was not prevented by this from making effective representation. 2. It is now well-settled that the words "communicate to such person the grounds" occurring in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India could mean only "communicate the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu", so as to enable him to make effective representation against the order of detention, and this alone, will satisfy the constitutional mandate. 2. It is now well-settled that the words "communicate to such person the grounds" occurring in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India could mean only "communicate the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu", so as to enable him to make effective representation against the order of detention, and this alone, will satisfy the constitutional mandate. What exactly the "grounds" should mean is also a well-settled proposition. It would take in all constituent facts and materials that went into make up the mind of the detaining authority. We need not refer to very many citations in this behalf and it would suffice the purpose if we refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Lallubhai Josibhai v. Union of India1and Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat2. As stated above, we find there is no answer on behalf of the respondent with regard to the ground raised that the detenu does not know English and he has not been communicated with the relevant material namely, the earlier adjudication proceedings in the Customs case in the language known to the detenu, namely, Tamil and this will definitely come within the dictum of the, Supreme Court decisions cited above. We must also point out that we have followed the dictum of the Supreme Court in our order dated 28th January, 1983 in (S. Ravindran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others3). In this view, there is no escape from the position that the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (5) stands infringed. The answer that the detenu himself was involved in such earlier proceedings and he knew about it and hence, he could not be said to have been prejudiced by non-furnishing of the Tamil translation, is no answer at all and we cannot visualise and give a ruling as to how far the detenu would have made an attempt to wash off the implications of such previous involvent, if he had been furnished with the Tamil translation. Such a test is alien to the question in issue. 3. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor states that the order of detention could be sustained on other grounds also and relies on section 5-A of the COFEPOSA. Similar contention was also considered by us in our order referred to above and we repelled the same. Such a test is alien to the question in issue. 3. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor states that the order of detention could be sustained on other grounds also and relies on section 5-A of the COFEPOSA. Similar contention was also considered by us in our order referred to above and we repelled the same. At the risk of repetition, we must point out that we are not on the question of sustaining the order of detention on one or other of the grounds, but we are more on the question of compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (5). In view of our sustaining this ground of attack, we have not adverted to and investigated the other grounds urged. In the result, we have no other alternative but to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and accordingly, we allow this writ petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.