A. Raghuvir, C. J.- Md. Ayub Khan President of Boiragi Math, Dibrugarh of the State Assam was detained on February 7, 1989 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 46 of 1988. This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the spouse of the detenue Mrs. Hina Khan. In this petition a long list of events beginning from June 2, 1986 are set out. In this petition the Superintendent of District Jail, Gauhati, Union of India, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi are impleaded and all of them resist the petition. It is averred on June 2, 1986 from (ancestral) the house of the detenue some goods were recovered by the Excise Officials and the detenue was prosecuted. During the proceedings in the Criminal Court bail was granted to the detenue on June 16, 1986. Four months after the search a further seizure was made on October 18, 1986 at Bcltola, Gauhati. A complaint was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati against 14 persons including the detenue on October 20, 1986. In that criminal case the detenue was enlarged on bail There is a reference to bail order is made on September 18,1987 as respects that :order the Excise Officials attempted in the Courts to rescind the bail order. This Court on October 5, 1988 did not cancel the bail instead it is averred protection order was passed by this Court. The full details of the order are not relevant for this 'Habeas Corpus' petition The detenue it is averred was residing in a rented house That house was also searched and in that connection on February 7, 1989 the detenue, was called for interrogation by the Assistant Coll­ector of Customs and Central Excise, Dibrugarh. On that day grounds dated July 28, 1988 were served on him and with that the detention commenced. These prefatory statements show the detention commenced on February 7, 1989. Thereupon the detenue made representation before the authority on March 18, 1989 routed through the District Jail Authority. That representation was rejected on April 21, 1989 by the authorities and the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India confirmed he detention on May 1, 1989. In the counter of opposition all adverse allegations made against the respondents are traversed. Thereupon the detenue made representation before the authority on March 18, 1989 routed through the District Jail Authority. That representation was rejected on April 21, 1989 by the authorities and the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India confirmed he detention on May 1, 1989. In the counter of opposition all adverse allegations made against the respondents are traversed. Two contentions are raised in this Court on behalf of the detenue by the learned counsel. The ground No, 1 is the grounds of detention served on February 2nd, 1989 were written in Assamese. The documents and vital materials to support the ground were served in English. These documents are not translated and served on the detenue. The second grounds turns on the representation filed by the detenue of March 18, 1989 which was disposed of on April 21, 1989 after 'the delay of 34 days. We may at the put set state that in the counter in opposition the two grounds are stoutly denied. It is averred all documents were served on the detenue. Further it is stated that there was no delay in the disposal of the representation. At the debate no attempt is made to prove the assertion made to prove the assertion made in the Court of opposition by the authorities. The documents which were filed in support of the grounds are not translated into Assamese. The translated copies were not served on the detenue is obvious from the record as documents are in English language with which detenue is not familiar. On this aspect relating to grounds, the recent authority is AIR 1987 SC 1192 (para 12) (Tsering Dolkar vs. Administrator, U. T. Delhi) in that AIR 1962 SC 911 (Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra) is also cited. The instant Act 45 of 1988 did not make any amendment touching on this aspect. The ground in some sense stems out from Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The next ground is about 34 days delay that occurred in conside­ring the representation made by the detenue. We see in AIR 1973 SC 824 (S.k. Rashid vs. -State of W. B.) the delay was 26 days in considering the representation the Apex Court held the delay vitiated the detention order. In the case of 1986 SCC(Supp)528 (Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & ors.) the delay of 45 days received similar result. We see in AIR 1973 SC 824 (S.k. Rashid vs. -State of W. B.) the delay was 26 days in considering the representation the Apex Court held the delay vitiated the detention order. In the case of 1986 SCC(Supp)528 (Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & ors.) the delay of 45 days received similar result. In the case of (1980) 4 SCC 428 (Saleh Mohammed vs. Union of India) the delay was 22 days and a similar conclusion was reached by the Apex Court. On consideration of the authorities the .two grounds to repeat as to non-supply of vital documents in Assamese language and the delay of 34 days in disposing of the representation by the respondents are established by the petitioner. We hold 'the detention can not be justified. Md. Ayub Khan, resident of Boiragimath, Djbrugarh is ordered /to set at liberty forthwith Communicate a precise order to the Superintendent, district Jail, Gauhati. H.K.Sema, J.- I agree.