JUDGMENT Dharmadhikari, J. - In this writ petition the wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane on 9th of October 1984 detaining her husband Shri Ramsurat Ramdas Yadav under the provisions of the National Security Act, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Alongwith the order of detention, the grounds of detention as well as the translated copies of the order, grounds of detention and the relevant documents' were supplied to the detenu. It is this order of detention and the continued detention of the detenu which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Mr. Sebestian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that admittedly the detenu did not know English language and he was conversant with the Hindi language only. Therefore, the translated copy of the order of detention as well as the copies ot 9ther' relevant documents were supplied to him in Hindi. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention in Hindi are duly signed by Shri Ramchandran, Commissioner of Police, Thane. Within the meaning of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the order of detention and the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu in Hindi. Therefore, for all practical purposes it is in Hindi version of the order of detention as well as the grounds which are material and crucial. The said Hindi version clearly indicates that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Apart from several mistakes and discrepancies in Hindi and English versions of the grounds of detention and other documents, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority so far as the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Hindi are concerned. This has prejudicially affected the right of the, detenu to make an effective representation against his detention and this is the reason why the detenu could not make any effective representation either to the State Government or to the Central Government. He also contended that the grounds disclosed in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. They only involve question of law and order and nothing more. He also contended that the grounds disclosed in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. They only involve question of law and order and nothing more. Therefore, the order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu is also vitiated on that court. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. and others1. 3. On the other hand it is contended by Smt. Desai the learned public prosecutor, that the mistakes in Hindi version are wholly minor and trivial and could not be termed as substantial. Since the mistakes were wholly minor and trivial it cannot be said that the right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation was anyway violated. According to the learned counsel apart from the order of detention, the grounds of detention in Hindi were also served on the detenu. These grounds clearly recite the allegations against the detenu as well as the reasons for his detention. Therefore any mistakes in the translated version of the order will not vitiate his detention. In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel v. The Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu and another.2 Smt. Desai further contended that having regard to the nature of the activities of the detenu and its potentiality, it is quite clear that he was indulging in violent and terrorising activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the order passed by the detaining authority is perfectly legal and valid. 4. It is an admitted position that the detenu only knew Hindi language. This is the reason why the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served upon the detenu in Hindi. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention in Hindi are duly signed by the detaining authority. Therefore, in substence these are the documents which are germane for deciding the controversy raised before us. This is the reason why the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served upon the detenu in Hindi. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention in Hindi are duly signed by the detaining authority. Therefore, in substence these are the documents which are germane for deciding the controversy raised before us. The order of detention in Hindi reads as under: 824 ^^blds vuqlkj iqfyl Fkkuk dks fo'okl gks x;k gS fd jkelqjr jkenkl ;kno jgus dk Lfkku xysxkWao rkyqdk dY;k.k ftYgk Fkkuk buds lkoZtfud gkfudkjd gypkykSdh jksduk t:jh gS] ml n`f"Vdks.k ls jk"V~zh; lqj{kk dkuwu lu 198 dkuwu dz0 65 lu 198 ds vuqlkj mUgsa utjcan djus ds /kkjsus vkns'k fudkyuk t:jh gS A mlds vuqlkj blh dkuwu ds /kkjk 3 2 lg 'kkldh; vkns'k x`g foHkkx fo'ks"k dzekad ,u~,u~@2984 2@,l~ih,l~ 3 v fnukad 10 tqykbZ 1984 vuqlkj fn;s x;s vf/kdkj ds vuqlkj iqfyl Fkkuk ,slk vkns'k nsrs gSa fd] fd jkelqjr jkenkl ;kno jgus dk Lfkku xysxkWao rkyqdk vil.k ftyk Fkkuk dks mijksDr ds vuqlkj utjcan dj fn;k tk; A From the bare reading of this order, it is quite clear that it was the police station which was satisfied about the activities of the detenu and not the detaining authority. The words and expressions used in Hindi version are not in consonance with the provisions of section 3(1) of the National Security Act. We ate sorry to note that though the Hindi language is treated as a: National Language and the authentic version of the Act in Hindi is also 'published by the Central Government, for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, they had not even cared to read the said Hindi text. In Hindi version of the enactment the phraseology used is altogether different and distinct. We are really surprised as to why even today in Bombay which is capital of Maharashtra or in Thane, English is treated as the language' of the common man and all orders, etc. are issued in English and this is inspite of the avowed policy of the State Government, to treat Marathi as 'Raj Bhasa' of the State. Though the witnesses depose in Marathi or Hindi we are surprised to see that the statements are recorded in English. are issued in English and this is inspite of the avowed policy of the State Government, to treat Marathi as 'Raj Bhasa' of the State. Though the witnesses depose in Marathi or Hindi we are surprised to see that the statements are recorded in English. Thereafter since the persons detained are not conversant with English language, they are retranslated in Marathi or Hindi with numerous mistakes and translation of the translation is supplied to the datenu. It is difficult to say whether mistakes are deliberate or accidental. But this creates unforeseen complications. It is by now well settled that if the grounds of detention are supplied to the detenu in the language with which he is not conversant the service of the grounds in that manner could not be considered to be effective communication, so as to afford him a real opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. In, such a case detention will be repugnant to the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. For this the translation should be faithful and correct. It is noticed that in many cases detenu are released because of faulty and incorrect translations. Inspite of this the officers knowing Marathi or Hindi language and Dewnagri script, are still insisting upon recording the statements or issuing the orders in English. We fail to understand the logic behind this, and for whose benefit this is being done. Why we are not prepared to forget the days of East India Company and the British Rule. It is no doubt true that vested interests are always against every change and are least concerned with the predicament of a common man. But why should anybody be interested in the release of a Smuggler or a person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order? However, it is really distressful and regrettable that in spite of the pronouncement of the highest court of the land, the authorities show little or no interest in complying with the Constitutional mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution. 5. In this case, on the basis of the Hindi version of the order of detention, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of detention is merely signed by the Commissioner of Police mechanically and is practically issued and drawn up by the concerned Police Station authorities. 5. In this case, on the basis of the Hindi version of the order of detention, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of detention is merely signed by the Commissioner of Police mechanically and is practically issued and drawn up by the concerned Police Station authorities. This is quite clear from the order of detention itself. The satisfaction recorded therein is that of Police Station and not of detaining authority. This shows total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. We find much substance in this contention. 6. Something could have been said in favour of the detaining authority on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel's case if at least the Hindi version of the grounds of detention which is also signed by the Commissioner of Police, was in tune with the provision of law. Para 3 of the grounds of detention in Hindi reads as follows: 825 "\if!f"{TCfCf ~c"'T3if ~ lT~ a:i9T "fTefT ~ <tiT 3fT1f ({iF fCfs<r~iF atT'{ f~~'1i 'PT~f!!T\i JI"f ~,3fT'{ ~)~iTT 3iT'{ ~~~ 3T1~ qrij" ct !(i?fT q1;:r mtf'11T ;pnt~':f ~ I '~'f!i 3TTq-~ qT~)<m:T if>T @ ~h !f)T'!'i') if>t"{cn~~T ~G"r: a-WH'i'T, fqc'i'T, '"fliTq ~~8r en~ijT an;:::) if>,,;:r if>T. 3''fi~ T~ ~ I arrq~ fij"~Cf<: f~ij"if> ~h G"~Wa-T ~i'1:f) ~ J:f)~'ir 3Th 3"1J~ ;:PT~if> <ii ~{1T'fiT it ~rcr\iffi'fif> ij"o1:f~f<rT ~~ it orrcH orqT if» .. ~ I it~ ~~ orrCTT q~r if>.<:'iT anrT ~) :qT~ ~I ann;)' ~To ~o !f>To ] 98 ~ 3icr~i'f ~iij"Of;Q fif>Q; orif<: 3TTtf 3Tpret? ffPft~HT l>r J:fG"~ ~ if><: "{~ 1j-'<: CJiTiUfT ~<:q;~ oi~ ij"q:) if>~it, f;rIJ r ~rcr:;rfij" {i ~'3!:f'ff~T if ~ fi"Tqc q:G"r if» ~ I 3Tf'tif>T ~ij" q~ ifjP1;Uf) ~<:encr) ~ "{)'ti~ ~ f~q 3,,'iifjT ~r" ~ 0 fiT ~Fr 1 98 of; 3Tcr1Tcr f"1N .. q;Q 'fi<:i'fr '"f~U ~, itIJr i!,~ f<nr.rm ~an ~ I" This Hindi is wholly contrary to the recitable in the original English version. Inspite of the best effects of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, it was not possible for them to make any sense out of it. In these circumstances, we have no other alter.. q;Q 'fi<:i'fr '"f~U ~, itIJr i!,~ f<nr.rm ~an ~ I" This Hindi is wholly contrary to the recitable in the original English version. Inspite of the best effects of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, it was not possible for them to make any sense out of it. In these circumstances, we have no other alter.. native but to hold that the order of detention is vitiated by total non-application of mind and is not within the four corners of section 3 of the National Security Act and is also repugnant to the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. In the view which we have taken. it is not necessary to decide any other contention raised, and argued before us. In the result, therefore, Rule is made absolute and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay for information and necessary action. In this regard we will like to draw the attention of the authorities concerned towards the following observations of the Supreme Court in Kamla Kanhaiyalal Khushlani v. State of Maharashtra anr.3 "We would like to suggest that whenever a detention is struck down by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the detaining authority or the officers concerned who are associated with the preparation of the grounds of detention, must be held personally responsible and action should be taken against them for not complying with the constitutional requirements and safe guards or, at any rate an explanation from the authorities concerned must be called for by the Central Government so that in future persons against whom serious acts of smuggling are alleged, do not go scot free." These observations aptly apply to the present case also. We hope that these observations of the Supreme Court will be respected by the authorities concerned and appropriate action will be taken in the matter. (Detenu set free) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 18. 2. A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1029. 3. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 814.