JUDGMENT - M.M. Qazi, J.:---The petitioner is a detenue. He has been detained under section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) read with Government Order No. S.P.L. 3(A)/P.S.A. 0187/12.I dated 26-10-86 vide order dated 18-2-87 passed by Shri D.N. Capoor, Officer on Special Duty. 2. It is not necessary to enter into several challenges, which have been raised in this petition, since petition can be allowed on the basis of ground (F), which reads thus : “That the petitioner/detenue is only conversant with Tamil language, being the mother-tongue of the petitioner. He does not know or understand any other language. He could not read or write Hindi, English or any other language. It is imperative on the part of the Detaining Authority to communicate the grounds in a language understood by the person concerned so that he can make effective representation. The documents/grounds which are supplied to the petitioner were in Hindi, English and Marathi; the language, which he does not know or understand. Thus, the petitioner is deprived of his right of representation, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The supply of the documents which are considered at the time of confirming the grounds of detention in the language which the petitioner does not understand amounts to not-supply of documents. Thus, the Detaining Authority failed to strict compliance of requirements. It discloses the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which renders the order of detention illegal, unconstitutional and void.” 3. Mr. Phadnis has invited our attention to the statement of the petitioner, which was recorded by the Customs Authority on 10-11-85 and 19-10-86. In both these statements, he admitted that though he knew Hindi but he did not know how to read and write Hindi. Inspite of this, he was furnished with the grounds and documents in Hindi, Marathi and English. The challenge referred supra has been replied to by the respondent in an affidavit filed by Shri D.N. Capoor. Para 10 reads thus : “With reference to the contents of para 6(F) of the petition I say that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 19-10-86 by the Customs undertaking 108 of the Customs Act. The challenge referred supra has been replied to by the respondent in an affidavit filed by Shri D.N. Capoor. Para 10 reads thus : “With reference to the contents of para 6(F) of the petition I say that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 19-10-86 by the Customs undertaking 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner has stated that he understands Hindi language very well and therefore, all the documents were supplied to the petitioner in Hindi language and thus, the contention of the petitioner in the said para have no merits and thus, there is no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has been supplied with documents in the language known to the petitioner.” 4. On the basis of this reply, Mr. Ahmed asserted that there is no violation of requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India since the grounds and documents have been made available to the petitioner in the language known to him. There is obvious fallacy in the argument as well as in the reply filed by Shri D.N. Capoor. A man may know a language but if he does not know how to read or write that language, then merely making the grounds and documents available in the language would not amount to compliance of the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. This would not enable a detenue to avail an opportunity of making effective representation. In the instant case, we have no doubt that merely making the documents available to the petitioner in Hindi, without explaining the same to him, is of no consequence. Having regard to these facts, we have no doubts that the petitioner's valuable right of making effective representation is effected. Having regard to these facts, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. Order accordingly. -----