A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) WAY back in 1980 the Supreme Court in Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India A. I. R. 1980 Supreme Court 1751 while dealing with a detention order passed by the Government of Gujarat observed that it was necessary to explain the grounds of detention to the detenu in the language known to him. The Supreme Court further impressed upon the Detaining Authority that when the grounds of detention are alleged to have been explained by a Police Officer to the detenu the affidavit of the concerned Police Officer ought to be filed because the Deputy Secretary would not be in a position to state whether or not in fact the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu. In that case also the detenu contended that the detention order and the grounds of detention were furnished to him in a language which he did not understand. This allegation was sought to be countered through the affidavit of Shri P. M. Shahs Deputy Secretary who stated that one Shri A. K. Sharma Police Inspector Ahmedabad had explained to the detenu the order of detention and grounds communicated to him. This affidavit of Shri P. M. Shah was in the opinion of the Supreme Court wholly inadmissible in evidence. It was further pointed out by the Supreme Court that if it was a fact that Inspector Shrama had personally explained the grounds to the detenu then his affidavit ought to have been filed in support thereof. In that case as in the present case no contemporaneous record was produced to show that Inspector Sharma had actually explained or translated the grounds to the detenu. These observations were made as far back as in 1980 and lot the spectacle of the State Government persisting in its practice of vainly trying to controvert a similar allegation made by the detenu through the lone affidavit of the Deputy Secretary having no personal knowledge as to what transpired when the order of detention and the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu. It is indeed a sad commentary on the functioning of the Detaining Authority that despite the observations made by the Supreme Court in Raziyas case (supra) almost five years back it has not tried to correct itself. It is indeed a sad commentary on the functioning of the Detaining Authority that despite the observations made by the Supreme Court in Raziyas case (supra) almost five years back it has not tried to correct itself. The indifference shown by the Detaining Authority in this behalf must of necessity prove fatal in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. ( 2 ) LOOK at the facts of the present case. The detenu is an illiterate person. The detenu has in paragraph 4 of his petition in unmistakable language stated that the respondents had not explained the order of detention and the grounds of detention in a language known to him i. e. the Kutchchhi language. This is sought to be controverted through the affidavit of Shri Randhawa Deputy Secretary Home Department who in paragraph 3 states as under:"i do not admit that the order of detention and the grounds of detention are not explained to the detenu in the language know to the detenu. I say and submit that at the time of serving the order of detention and the grounds of detention the Police Officer who served the said order and grounds alongwith the materials explained to the detenu the order of detention and the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu. It is stated in the endorsement that the detenu knows Gujarati language and he has been explained the order of detention and the ground of detention. I say and submit that there is no script in Kutchchhi language". It is true that there is no Kutchchhi script because it is a dialect. But there can be no escape from the fact that the detenu ought to have been explained the order of detention and the grounds of detention in the dialect known to him. It is difficult to understand how the Deputy Secretary could have personal knowledge regarding the fact that the detenu knows Gujarati. It seems that he so states from the endorsement stated to have been made by the Police Officer. The name of the Police Officer is not disclosed. We also do not know whether the Police Officer knew Kutchchhi. But that is not important because even from the averments in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is clear that the said two documents were not explained to the detenu in Kutchchhi. The name of the Police Officer is not disclosed. We also do not know whether the Police Officer knew Kutchchhi. But that is not important because even from the averments in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is clear that the said two documents were not explained to the detenu in Kutchchhi. The endorsement was made by the concerned Police Officer who has not come forward to state on oath that the detenu knew Gujarati and he had explained the two documents to him in Gujarati. The contemporaneous record is also not produced. The further statement made by the Deputy Secretary in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit denying that the detenu knows only Kutchchhi language is not worth the paper on which it is written because he can have no personal knowledge in that behalf nor dues the Deputy Secretary pretend to have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the detenu knows any language other than Kutchchhi. A person who has no personal knowledge can hardly be said to be competent to controvert a factual allegation of this type and that is why the Supreme Court also while dealing with the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary Shri P. M. Shah observed that it was wholly inadmissible in evidence. Even after these observations if the Detaining Authority remained oblivious and does not mend its ways in dealing with such situations we are left with no alternative but to quash the detention order. We hope that the concerned authorities will awaken from their slumber and take remedial measures to see that such mistakes are not repeated. We feel pained that we are constrained to quash the detention order on such a technical plea. ( 3 ) IN the result the petition succeeds. The order of detention is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be released at once unless required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (KMV) petition allowed. .