JUDGMENT Agarwal, J - The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 is challenged by the detenu's wife in this petition. 2. Having heard Shri Dinesh Shah, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, and Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, it must be held that the Petition will have to be allowed on the short ground that the petitioner has been deprived of his right of making an effective representation, a right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 3. We have perused the copies of the documents which were accompanied with the grounds that were served upon the detenu and we find that several of these documents are wholly illegible. If that be so, it will have to be held that the detenu was deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation against the order of detention. 4. Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, however, urged that the original documents which were collected by the detaining authority were themselves illegible and, therefore, the detaining authority could not serve copies better than those on the detenu. In our judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Even the learned Public Prosecutor, who is well versed in the Hindi language, was unable to read the said documents. If the detaining authority took into account this material which is both illegible and unintelligible, it will have to be held that it has taken into consideration extraneous material while passing the order of detention. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.