JUDGMENT: Natarajan, J.: The detenu has filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention and for setting him at liberty. 2. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting, smuggling and also engaging in transporting smuggled goods. 3. The brief facts as stated in the grounds of detention, which were necessitated in passing the order of detention are as follows: On 14-12-1986 at 3.45 a.m. at the Madras Airport the Customs Officials intercepted three suit cases with markings 098-49242631 (3) S’pore/Bom/BLR while they were being loaded in the dicky of the taxi bearing Registration No.TMC 3390 parked in front of in/out gate of the Indian Airlines Cargo Movement Section, Madras Airport. One Ananthasubramaniam was supervising the loading of the said three suit cases in the taxi and the detenu and one John were carrying/loading the said three suit cases in the taxi. When questioned, the driver of the taxi identified the said Ananthasubramaniam as the person travelling along with another person from T.Nagar for the purpose of taking delivery of some packages from the Indian Airlines cargo office and Ananthasubramaniam alighted near the International Airport Entry gate. On questioning the said Ananthasubramaniam replied that the said three suit cases bound for Bangalore by flight IC 513-14-12-1986 were taken out clandestinely from the cargo premises by replacing other three suit cases (local make) with the help of the detenu and John. With reference to the Airway bill No.098-49242631 the Duty Officer N.S.Rajamani and he, while identifying the said Ananthasubramaniam, the detenu as canteen Supplier, and D.Kumar Christopher as loader respectively attached to the Indian Airlines stated that three packages weighing 105 Kg. were booked for Bangalore as transhipment cargo from Singapore. The said Rajamani identified the three suit cases and all the three suit cases of the local makes with the markings 098-4924631. The three suit cases were intercepted in the taxi. They were serially numbered. were booked for Bangalore as transhipment cargo from Singapore. The said Rajamani identified the three suit cases and all the three suit cases of the local makes with the markings 098-4924631. The three suit cases were intercepted in the taxi. They were serially numbered. Thereafter, when questioned, the said Ananthasubramaniam stated that he was not having the keys for the suit cases and finally the three suit cases were opened and examined and it was found to contain rough uncut synthetic stones of foreign origin totally weighing 100 Kg. The same were weighed in the presence of witnesses. Another suit case was found to contain one Expo key-chain with two keys in the pouch of the suit case and some English magazines in the suit case. The other two suit cases were opened and found to contain only English Magazines. They were all seized and thereafter the houses of Ananthasubramaniam and three others were searched and all other subsequent action was taken. The statements of the persons, Ananthasubramaniam, the detenu and John were recorded and after holding the necessary enquiry the papers were placed before the first respondent, and on being satisfied that the detenu was indulged in smuggling activities, has passed the impugned order on 25-3-1987. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B. Kumar though raised various grounds, confined his arguments to the two grounds, viz., that the detenu studied only upto 10th Standard and he was doing only some manual work and later got employed and he does not know English either to read or write but knows only Tamil and he can only put his signature in English and to a representation submitted by him and also requested the detaining authority to furnish certain copies referred to in the order of detention. A reply was sent in English and further the copies were given only in English and not in the language known to him, viz., Tamil and as such the detenu was deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation and as such the order is bad. The learned counsel also submitted that tough the detenu asked for furnishing the copies on 14-5-1987, the copies were furnished only on 26-6-1987 and that there was a delay of 54 days in supplying the copies. The said delay also vitiates the order. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that tough the detenu asked for furnishing the copies on 14-5-1987, the copies were furnished only on 26-6-1987 and that there was a delay of 54 days in supplying the copies. The said delay also vitiates the order. 5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he knows only to sign in English and the he does not know to read and write English. The allegation in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition has not been controverted in the counter filed by the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the copies furnished to the accused are in English. Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent only submitted that even though it is not specifically denied in the counter, but, there is a general denial about all the allegations and further since the detenu's representation is only in English and he signed in English, his contention that he does not know to read and write cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that when the petitioner has specifically alleged in the affidavit that he does not know to read and write English, it is the duty of the detaining authority either to affirm or deny the same, and when it has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit, it is too much to rely on the representation contains the signature of the detenu in English would not assume any importance. The detenu knows only to sign in English. Even otherwise in all the documents we find the endorsement to the effect that the documents which are in English that it was explained and translated to the detenu in the language known to him. If the detenu was well versed in English language, there was no necessity for such an endorsement in all these documents to the above effect. Hence, we find much force in the contention of the learned counsel that by failure to furnish the translated copies as documents required by the detenu in Tamil Language, there was no proper communication and, in any event, the detenu was deprived of an opportunity to make effective representation and on this ground the order of detention is vitiated. 6. Hence, we find much force in the contention of the learned counsel that by failure to furnish the translated copies as documents required by the detenu in Tamil Language, there was no proper communication and, in any event, the detenu was deprived of an opportunity to make effective representation and on this ground the order of detention is vitiated. 6. As regards the second contention, it is not in dispute that the copies of the documents were asked for in the representation itself on 14-5-1987 and they were furnished only on 26-6-1987. Among the documents we find documents 1 and 2 were referred to even in the grounds of detention. There is absolutely no explanation on the side of the detaining authority, viz., the first respondent for the delay in furnishing copies. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, in para 9 it is only stated that the documents required by the detenu were to be obtained from different agencies like Air India and took some time to trace and supply the same to the sponsoring authority and the documents were therefore supplied only on 29-6-1987. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to various decisions and submitted that once the documents are referred to in the order of detention, the detaining authority must be in possession of those documents and must be aware that the copies of those documents should be furnished to the detenu and it is not open to say that they took time for obtaining copies. In support of this case, the learned counsel relied on a decision in Icchu Devi v. Union of India Icchu Devi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1963. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of statements, and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of statements, and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the detenu makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously, and when copies of such documents are asked for by the detenu, the detaining authority should be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition.” That was a case where there was a delay of 12 days in furnishing copies of the documents requested by the detenu and their Lordships held that the said delay is unreasonable. It was observed that it was urged in that case that the documents and statements of which copies were requested by the detenu ran 89 pages and it was therefore reasonable to assume that a few days must have been taken in the Customs Department to make copies of these documents and hence the time of 12 days taken up by the Assistant Collector of Customs is sending copies of the documents and statements to the Deputy Secretary could not be said to be unreasonable. This argument is patently unsound, because the Assistant Collector of Customs ought to have kept ready with him copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention since it should have been anticipated that these copies would have to be supplied to the detenu in order to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention and it does not lie in the mouth of the Assistant Collector of Customs to say that his department started making copies for the first time when a request for copies was made by the detenu. In fact, copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the ground of detention should have been available with the detaining authority itself so that they could be supplied to the detenu immediately as soon as a request was made in that behalf. Ultimately it was held that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the detaining authority in supplying to the detenu copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention and the continued detention of the detenu was accordingly illegal and void. Ultimately it was held that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the detaining authority in supplying to the detenu copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention and the continued detention of the detenu was accordingly illegal and void. To the same effect, the learned counsel relied on another decision in Manswmakh v. Slate of Gujarat Manswmakh v. Slate of Gujarat A.I.R. 1981 S. C. 28.:1980 Crl. L. T. 1286:(1981) 1 S. C.J. 250: (1981) 2 S.C.C. 175 :(1981) MLJ. (Crl.) 172:(1981) S.C.C. (Crl.) 381: (1981) 1 S.C.R. 353 . They deal wish the delay in furnishing copies and held that the detaining authority was under any constitutional or statutory obligation to supply copies of these additional materials even though the grounds communicated to the detenu are elaborate. In the present case, on going through the materials placed before us and on hearing the arguments, we find that there is absolutely no acceptable explanation for the delay in furnishing copies which are referred to in the order of detention and further for failure to furnish the copies in respect of the previous incident referred to in the order of detention for which copies were asked for and the order of detention is also vitiated both on the ground of delay in furnishing copies of the documents, which have been referred to in the order of detention and also the failure of furnishing copies of the documents which are referred to in the order of detention. On both the grounds, in a catena of cases of this Court and the Supreme Court more than once that it is incumbent on the State to satisfy the Court that the detention of the petitioner was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions but also strictly in accordance with the constitutional safeguards implied in Art.22(5) of the Constitution. Hence, on both the grounds the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed the order of detention is hereby quashed and the petitioner-detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. B.S.----- Petition allowed.