ORDER (ORAL) S.P. Kurdukar, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-detenu challenging the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated January 10, 1990 issued under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Annexure A to the petition). This order has been issued by the first respondent the detaining authority. 2. Grounds of detention were formulated and were served alongwith the order of detention on the detenu on 10th January, 1990. 3. It is not necessary to set out in detail the grounds of detention since the fate of this writ petition depends upon one contention to which we may refer hereinafter. 4. Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition, urged that the Marathi translation of the post-mortem notes furnished to the detenu is not the same as the English one inasmuch as in the Marathi translation furnished to the detenu, important paragraphs viz. 6 to 15 and 18 to 21 were not translated. The contention, therefore, is that the Marathi translation of the post -mortem notes which was served on the detenu was not a complete document and, therefore, it amounts to non-communication of the vital and material document on the detenue and as a result thereof, the detenue could not file representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Mr. Tripathi, therefore, urged that both the facets of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India have been violated by the detaining authority, The ground of challenge in this behalf is found in paragraph 6 (I). In reply to this contention, the detaining authority in its affidavit has fairly admitted that the English post-mortem notes contain in all 22 columns, whereas Marathi translated copy contain only 7 columns. According to the detaining authority, only columns 1 to 5, 17 and 22 of the English post-mortem report are vital and important and, therefore, Marathi translation of these columns was furnished to the detenue. Other columns from the English post-mortem report were not relevant and, therefore, the same were not furnished to the detenue. The detaining authority further stated that non-supply of the Marathi translation of the columns 6 to 16 and 18 to 21 does not amount to breach of any of the facets of the Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Other columns from the English post-mortem report were not relevant and, therefore, the same were not furnished to the detenue. The detaining authority further stated that non-supply of the Marathi translation of the columns 6 to 16 and 18 to 21 does not amount to breach of any of the facets of the Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. (See paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri R.D. Tyagi, the detaining authority dated 24th July, 1990. 5. This submission, in our opinion, is unsustainable because It was obligatory upon the detaining authority to furnish the Marathi translation of the entire document of post-mortem report and they cannot be heard to say that the translation that was not supplied to the detenue was not relevant. The contention of the detaining authority is also untenable because column 18 (a) of the postmortem notes records important information, viz. as to whether Medical Officer can definitely say that the injuries shown against serial Nos. 17 and 18 are ante-mortem injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that non-supply of the Marathi translation of the post-mortem notes to the detenue has vitiated the detention order on the ground that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenue and also on the ground that the detenu was denied and opportunity to file his representation at the earliest under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order of. detention dated 10th January, 1990 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Detenu be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.