Order Ramaswami, J.- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's uncle one Ayyavoo alias Andi Thevar who, according to the petitioner, is in illegal detention and direct the immediate release of the said detenu. 2. By an order of detention dated 23.12.1983 made under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act), the said Ayyavoo alias Andi Thevar was directed to be detained in the Central Prison by the District Magistrate, Madurai. The order of detention and the grounds of detention which is of the same date were communicated to the detenu. The grounds of detention referred to three earlier criminal proceedings taken against the detenu which are Pending. In the first of the instances referred, to the detenu was charged under Section 307 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 12 and 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. The charge was that on 24.12.1981 at about 13.00 hours at Peraiyur village in front of the Electricity Office, the detenu and two others armed with unlicenced gun and aruval attacked one Chellandi with the intention to commit murder due to previous enmity. The Complainant sustained injuries on his shoulder, head and back. In the second case it is stated that on 24.12.1981 at about 13.00 hours at Mangalapuram bus stop in Sedapatti Police Station limits, the detenu along with three others armed with weapons like country made gun and aruval attacked one Krishna Thevar with an intention to commit murder due to previous enmity and caused injuries to the said Krishna Thevar. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.22/1981 under Section 307, I.P.C., and Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act was registered and it is under investigation. In the third case it is stated that on 12.6.1983 at about 00.30 hours at Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai the detenu with the assistance of another, on the instigation of some third parties, fired at one Panneer with a revolver on his buttocks with the intention to commit murder due to enmity. In the third case it is stated that on 12.6.1983 at about 00.30 hours at Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai the detenu with the assistance of another, on the instigation of some third parties, fired at one Panneer with a revolver on his buttocks with the intention to commit murder due to enmity. On the complaint of Paneer, a case in Cr.No. 1123 of 1983 under Section 307 I.P.C., and Section 21 of the Indian Arms Act was registered and it is under investigation. There is also a fourth instance referred to in the detention order as the ground an which the detention order has been made. In that case also the detenu is alleged to have inflicted injuries with a revolver. On a complaint by the injured, a case in Crime No.900 of 1983 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 109, 324 and 307, I.P.C., and Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act and that is also under investigation. 3. Along with the grounds of detention, a number of documents relating to all the four instances were sent to the detenu. One of the documents is a statement of Dr. Sivalingam recorded under Section 161(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the incident that took place or. 24.12.1981 in Cr.No. 240 of 1981. This statement is in English and in this statement after referring to the various injuries found on the complainant, the doctor has given an opinion that the injuries are grievous and that "the injuries could be caused by using an aruval and gun." Another document which is also in English is the wound Certificate of the injured in the third case. In the said wound certificate, after nothing the injuries found on the complainant, the doctor has given an opinion that it is a simple injury. The third document is the statement of Dr. V. Ganesan. This is with reference to the last of the instances referred to in the grounds of detention. This statement is also in English. The fourth of the documents is a wound certificate relating to the fourth incident in which the doctor has given an opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. This document is also in English. 4. It is admitted that the detenu does hot know English and he could read and understand only Tamil. This statement is also in English. The fourth of the documents is a wound certificate relating to the fourth incident in which the doctor has given an opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. This document is also in English. 4. It is admitted that the detenu does hot know English and he could read and understand only Tamil. It is in those circumstances, the petitioner has taken the plea that there is a violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution by not supplying the above referred documents to the detenu in Tamil. 5. In Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1500 the Supreme Court after a consideration of the earlier decisions on this aspect, considered a similar question. The Supreme Court observed as follows: ““Communicate” is a strong word which means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the ‘grounds’ should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the ‘grounds’ to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation.” Therefore, in order to enable the detenu to make a purposeful and effective representation, the ground of detention and the statements, documents and other materials referred to or relied on either in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention must be communicated to him in a language known to the detenu. 6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contended that every one of the documents, statements or other materials referred to or relied on either in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention and which are communicated to the detenu shall be in vernacular and not in English. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that only those documents which are material and which have been relied on by the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction that need be communicated to the detenu in the language known to him. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that only those documents which are material and which have been relied on by the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction that need be communicated to the detenu in the language known to him. In this connection, she referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral (1981) 3 S.C.C. 317 : (1981) S.C.C. (Crl.) 720: (1981) Crl.L.J. 889: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1191wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “In our view, it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention.” 7. We may point out that though the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1500 while referring to the earlier decisions in L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral (1981) Crl. L.J.889: A.I.R.1981 S.C.1191 and in the 1982 Crl.L.J. 193: A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 53, observed that the Supreme Court has taken the view that all the documents, statements and other Materials referred or relied upon either in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention must be served upon the detenu, ultimately in that case, they referred to the documents and statements which were found to be in English language which was not known to the detenu as material documents which had obviously influenced the mind of the detaining authority. 8. In this case, the two statements of the doctors and the wound certificates cannot be said to be documents which did not have a bearing or documents which could not have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in coming to a conclusion as to whether the detent shall be detained as a gooda under the Act or not. The learned Public Prosecutor in fact did not dispute that before making the order of detention, the documents relating to all the four cases were before the detaining authority and the said authority should have perused all those documents. The learned Public Prosecutor in fact did not dispute that before making the order of detention, the documents relating to all the four cases were before the detaining authority and the said authority should have perused all those documents. If it was the case that she (the detaining authority) lad not perused anyone of those documents relating to those incidents, then the order itself will be liable to quashed on the ground of non-application of mind, and if she had perused and preferred to any of these documents which had a bearing on the incidents and those document not having been “communicated” to the detenu in a language known to him, then again the order is liable to be quashed Even if the restricted contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is to be accepted, it could not be said that the statements of the doctors and the wound certificates are not material documents. As we have referred to earlier, in their statements, the doctors have not only referred to the injuries, but have also given their opinion that they could have been caused by weapons like Aruval and gun. The charge itself is that armed with an unlicensed gun the detenu had inflicted the injuries on the respective complainants. In these circumstances; the statements of the doctors and wound certificates which relate to the possibility of the injuries being caused by the use of a gun or aruval are material factors and these documents should have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to whether keeping the detenu as a free citizen will endanger public peace or he should be detained under Section 3 of the Act. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor then contended that the detenu did not make any grievance of non-supply of the statements and the wound certificates at any earlier stage. First of all, it is not a case of the detenu having filed an explanation or a statement before the Government or the Advisory Board, not raising a question. This is a case where the detenu did not make any written representation at all at any stage. We are not sure as to what representation he made before the Advisory Board. This is a case where the detenu did not make any written representation at all at any stage. We are not sure as to what representation he made before the Advisory Board. Apart from this, in matters like this where constitutional questions and liberty of the individual are involved and especially in petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, we could not accept any plea of estoppel on the ground that he had not raised the same at an earlier stage. We are therefore, unable to accept this contention of the learned Public Prosecutor also. In this case, since there is a violation of the Constitutional mandate under Article 22(5), the order of detention is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed and the respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty immediately. R.S.R. ----- Petition allowed.