SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE wife of the detenu has filed the above writ petition, against an order of detention made under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act ('the Act' for short ). The order is dated 26-10-1990 made by the Government of India. The order was served on the detenu only 23-4-1991 as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grounds in support of the order of detention served on the detenu states that the officers of the enforcement had information that the detenu was returning home on 12-7-1990 after making "havala payments" with sheets of addresses of persons to whom payments had been made, etc. Earlier, on the basis of intelligence gathered by the said officers the residential premises of the detenu was searched by them on 7-4-1990, as a result of which 15 sheets of documents were seized. However, the detenu was not available at the time of search. On 12-7-1990 while the detenu was returning home officers intercepted him at the junction of J. M. Road and C. T. Street, Bangalore. Thereafter he was searched seizing 29 sheets of paper (J. M. Road was typed as A. M. Road in the grounds of detention ). The statement of detenu was recorded by the Enforcement Officers, Bangalore, after issuing an appropriate summons in that regard. The grounds further indicate that the officers suspected that the detenu had some connection with the person called Mohatesham Mohamed Ismail who was staying at room No. 302 of Hotel Maurya. The said room was also search subsequently and the statement of M. Mohamed Ismail was recorded. Para 7 of the grounds of detention gives the details of the statement made by M. Mohmed Ismail. Para 8 of the said grounds of detention gives the details of further statement made by the detenu under summons on 13-7-1990. Other relevant facts are narrated in various paras of the grounds of detention. After narrating all these facts at para 16 the Detaining Authority stated as follows :". . . . . . . . . . . . . Other relevant facts are narrated in various paras of the grounds of detention. After narrating all these facts at para 16 the Detaining Authority stated as follows :". . . . . . . . . . . . . In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you have been engaged in receiving and making payments in India unauthorisedly under instructions from a person resident out side India in violation of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. I am also satisfied that these unauthorised transactions indulged in by you have affected the foreign exchange resources of the country adversely. "the grounds also point out that the detenu had a right of representation and that the relevant documents have been enclosed to the grounds of detention which includes the statements of the detenu and of said M. Mohamed Ismail. The order of detention and the grounds thereto are in English language. Since detenu had no knowledge of the said language and knew only Hindi, Hindi versions of the order, grounds of detention and other documents were also furnished to the detenu. ( 2 ) ON 9-5-1991 the detenu made a representation to the Detaining Authority (Annexure-E) wherein inter alia he stated that the order and grounds of detention given in Hindi were not clearly and legibly written and the documents furnished were not in Devanagiri script nor number of words were in Hindi. He further stated that he was unable to understand them (obviously referring to the order, grounds and the documents ). Therefore the detenu stated that he was unable to make representation to the Detaining Authority, etc. On 15-5-1991 the detenu made a further representation reiterating the statements contained in the earlier representation. Thereafter he tried to traverse each paragraph of grounds of detention. In respect of para 7 the detenu stated that he was not connected with the facts stated therein and that he did not know any person by name Mohtesham Mohamed Ismail. Similarly he denied the contents of para 8. The detenu asserted that the statements recorded on 13-7-90 were not voluntary and they were obtained by officers by using force. He repeated that he did not know anything about the contents of the said alleged statements. There was also denial of other facts referred in the various paragraphs of the grounds of detention. The detenu asserted that the statements recorded on 13-7-90 were not voluntary and they were obtained by officers by using force. He repeated that he did not know anything about the contents of the said alleged statements. There was also denial of other facts referred in the various paragraphs of the grounds of detention. ( 3 ) IT is not necessary for us to refer to other facts having regard to the contention advanced before us by Mr. Jeshtmal. Though the learned Counsel raised several grounds we are of the view that it is sufficient to refer to one of them as follows :- the learned Counsel contended that the Hindi version of the grounds of detention was at variance with the English version of grounds of detention. Especially paragraphs 7 and 8 have been completely altered. A substantial part of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention has been omitted in para 7 of the Hindi version. After a few sentences narrating the alleged statements made by the detenu on 13-7-90 the structure of the sentences stood altered and thereafter the omitted portion of paragraph 7 was continued as part of paragraph 8 and after completing the said part from paragraph 7, the last portion containing a few sentences of para 8 were incorporated. ( 4 ) FROM the above the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the effect of the Hindi version of the grounds of detention was to attribute a substantial part of the statement made by M. Mohamed Ismail, to the detenu and thus a reading of para 8 conveyed the idea that several activities of some other persons which has a bearing on the offending activity leading to the detention order, were fully known to the detenu and the detenu made a statement disclosing those facts. Thus the material facts which influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority while arriving at the satisfaction as to the requirement to detain the detenu u/ S. 3 (1) of the Act comprised of at least two elements viz. Thus the material facts which influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority while arriving at the satisfaction as to the requirement to detain the detenu u/ S. 3 (1) of the Act comprised of at least two elements viz. , (i) the statement of M. Mohamed Ismail as to how he was organising the activity making payments in India on behalf of foreign residents; and (ii) the statement of the detenu that he was disbursing the amounts at the behest, of the said M. Mohamed Ismail and that the detenu knew about the modus operendi of the said M. Mohamed Ismail. By attributing several facts as within the knowledge of the detenu, by incorporating the substantial part of M. Mohamed Ismail as that of the detenu, the detenu was misled and thus he was deprived of an appropriate opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the Central Government however submitted that the Hindi version contained typographical errors but these erros could not have caused any prejudice to the detenu since the detenu was supplied with Hindi versions of the statements recorded and he could have verified true facts from the said statements. ( 6 ) THE question, therefore, pertains to the requirement of the grounds of detention to be furnished to a detenu in the light of the provisions of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Under the said provision of the Constitution Detaining Authority shall communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and shall afford him the earlier opportunity of making a representation against the order. Therefore the grounds should be clear and unequivocal without which it will not be possible for the detenu to make an effective representation contemplated by Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. In Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Koka v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC l184 : (1990 Cri LJ l187) the detenu was supplied with copies of the detention order and grounds of detention in Gurumukhi language along with the detention order and grounds in English. But they were at variance with each other. Therefore it was contended that the detenu was unable to effectively represent against the impugned detention order. But they were at variance with each other. Therefore it was contended that the detenu was unable to effectively represent against the impugned detention order. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this regard were : "in the Gurmukhi version of the detention order, it was stated that the detention order had become necessary 'with a-view to preventing him from smuggling goods and from abetting the smuggling of goods'. It is, therefore, clear that according to the Gurmukhi version the detenu was taken in detention under clauses (i) and (ii) of S. 3 (1) of the Act. However, when we turn to the grounds of detention the detaining authority records his satisfaction as under :"i am satisfied it is necessary to detain you under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from concealing, transporting smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods". This satisfaction clearly reflects the grounds contained in clauses (iii) and (iv) of S. 3 (1) of the Act. The above satisfaction does not speak of smuggling of goods or abetting the smuggling of goods which are the grounds found in the Gurmukhi version of the detention order. There is, therefore, considerable force in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of this variance the detenu was not able to effectively represent his case before the concerned authorities. In fact according to him the appellant was confused whether he should represent against his detention for smuggling of goods and/or abetting the smuggling of goods or for engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and/or dealing in smuggled goods. Besides the English version of the detention order was only for abetting the smuggling of goods. The satisfaction recorded in the Gurmukhi version of the grounds for detention is not consistent with the purpose for detention found in the detention order. It left the detenu confused whether he should represent against the grounds in the detention order or the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention. We are, therefore, of the opinion that because of this variance the detenu was unable to make an effective representation against his detention and was thereby denied his right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that because of this variance the detenu was unable to make an effective representation against his detention and was thereby denied his right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. " (underlining is ours) therefore if the grounds frunished to the detenu are in the language known to the detenu but its contents are such as to confuse the detenu the same would adversely affect the right vested in the detenu under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. ( 7 ) THE learned Central Government Standing Counsel tried to make a distinction between the grounds of detention and the facts narrated in the grounds of detention and urged that the errors if any in the narration of facts would not vitiate the grounds of detention so as to result in affecting the rights of the detenu under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. ( 8 ) THERE are facts and facts. Narration of some facts in the grounds of detention may be necessary as to give a full picture of the sequence of events. There will be some other facts which are essential to convey as to why the particular grounds of detention is attracted to the case of the particular detenu. The narration of this latter set of facts is absolutely necessary because such facts constitute the very basis for the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority and similarly those are the facts which a detenu will have to traverse in his representation. We may call this set of facts as essential facts and these essential facts actually constitute the grounds for detention though the broader head of detention may be stated in the words used in S. 3 (1) of the Act. ( 9 ) IN Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 431 : (1980 Cri LJ 1487) the Supreme Court pointed out that the word "grounds" in Art. 22 (5) do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual inferences. The grounds must be self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Supreme Court observed". . . . . . . The grounds must be self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Supreme Court observed". . . . . . . IT is an unwritten rule, of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. Where there is further an express statutory obligation to communicate not merely the decision that (but also) the grounds on which the decision is founded, it is a necessary corollary that the grounds communicated, that is, the grounds so made known, should be seen to pertain to pertinent and proximate matters and should comprise all the constituent facts and materials that went in to make up the mind of the statutory functionary and not merely the inferential conclusions. Now, the decision to detain a person depends on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Constitution and the statute cast a duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu. From what we have said above, it follows that the grounds communicated to the detenu must reveal the whole of the factual material considered by the detaining authority and not merely the inferences of fact arrived at by the detaining authority. The matter may also be looked at from the point of view of the second facet of Art. 22 (5 ). An opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention necessarily implies that the detenu is informed of all that has been taken into account against him in arriving at the decision to detain him. It means that the detenu is to be informed not merely, as we said, of the inferences of fact but of all the factual materials which have led to the inferences of fact. If the detenu is not to be so informed the opportunity so solemnly guaranteed by the Constitution becomes reduced to an exercise in futility. " (Underlining is ours) all basic facts and the particulars which influence the Detaining Authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. " (Underlining is ours) all basic facts and the particulars which influence the Detaining Authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. This principle, which has been stated as early as in Kudhiram's case AIR 1975 SC 550 : (1975 Cri LJ 446) is fully applicable to the present set of facts. It is not necessary for the detenu to examine the documents furnished to him in detail and then find out whether the narration of material facts in the grounds of detention accords with those state in the documents. What is conveyed in the grounds of detention is fundamental to the case of the detenu and against this he has to make the representation. It is not for the detenu to point out to the Detaining Authority that he has committed mistakes while stating the basic facts in the grounds of detention. In the instant case the detenu has repeatedly pointed out to the Detaining Authority, that he was unable to understand the order and the grounds of detention served on him which were in Hindi language, which is known to him. He had also denied the contents of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the grounds of detention. ( 10 ) IN the course of the argument we asked the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Govt. to furnish us with the English translation of the Hindi version of the grounds furnished to the detenu. Paras 7 and 8 which are material reads thus :"para 7: In his statement dated 13-7-90, given u/s. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, before the Enforcement Officer, Bangalore, Shri Mohtesham Mohd. to furnish us with the English translation of the Hindi version of the grounds furnished to the detenu. Paras 7 and 8 which are material reads thus :"para 7: In his statement dated 13-7-90, given u/s. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, before the Enforcement Officer, Bangalore, Shri Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail s/o Shri Abdul Khader has inter alia, stated that he is a citizen of India aged 46 Years; he has an Indian Passport issued from Dubai; his address in Dubai was Muzaffar Kola Enterprises, P. B. No. 7426, Dubai, UAE; "siraj Manzil" Bunder Road, Bhatkal, was his own house, he was the owner of half portion of the building by name Moti Market', Main Road, Bhatkal; he had a brother by, name Basha Abdul Khader Ali Murtaza who was running a textile trading Company in Jeddah where his address was Al-Salam Umad Basith Trading Company Jeddah; he (Motesham Ismail) was abroad since the past 12 years and used to visit India once a year, he used to also visit Gulf Countries in connection with his business; he was the working partner of Ahmed Ilyas Trading Company, P. B. No. 62, Abudhabi, UAE, in which Shri Ilyas Kola, his brother-in-law was also a working partner whereas Shri Ahmed, a citizen of UAE was also a partner; he was a Director of Kolaco Health Complex Pvt. Ltd. , Bhatkal; other Directors were his brother Shri Basha Abdul Khader Ali Murtaz, his and his other two brother-in-laws Ilyas Kolas' and Shri Muzzafar Kola's wives; Shri Salman was working in Kolaco suit case establishment in Dubai whereas Muzaffar Kola was running Muzaffar Kola Enterprises in Dubai. Enforcement Officers on 12-7-90 searched Room No. 302, Maurya Hotel, where he was staying and seized some documents, where he, his brother and his four brothers-in-law used to do business in all the Gulf countries; (XXX) through whom collected and the amounts given to Shri Tabres Bhai in Abudhabi were concerning. Enforcement Officers on 12-7-90 searched Room No. 302, Maurya Hotel, where he was staying and seized some documents, where he, his brother and his four brothers-in-law used to do business in all the Gulf countries; (XXX) through whom collected and the amounts given to Shri Tabres Bhai in Abudhabi were concerning. Sheet No. 1 to 11 are the xerox copies of Draft Application counter-foils, Acknowledgement Card and accounts of amounts distributed in Bombay; Shri Ali Bhai gave xerox copies of sheets 1 to 11 in Bombay so that it can be proven that mast of the payments have been made; he himself has checked on the basis of the xerox copies and has marked the payments made by Shri Ali Bhai along with dates on sheet Nos. 14, 15 and 17; he arrived Bangalore on 9-7-90 and since 10-7-90 was staying in Room No. 302 of Hotel Maurya where on 12-7-90 you met him and promised to give him the accounts for distribution of the amounts sent by him, but you were yet to give the abovesaid amounts. PARA 8 : In your statement dated 13-7-90, given under summons, you have further stated that Shri Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail, on whose instructions you have admittedly received Rs. PARA 8 : In your statement dated 13-7-90, given under summons, you have further stated that Shri Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail, on whose instructions you have admittedly received Rs. 60 lakhs, is a Partner of Kola Health Complex, Bhatkal and was running another Company in Dubai by name M/s. Muzaffar Kola Enterprises in which Shri Muzzaffar Kola also has an interest, the foreign address of Shri Mohtesham Ismail is P. O. Box No. 7428, Dubai, whenever Shri Mohtesham visits India, Shri Muzaffar Kola used to send instructions to him; on the request of Shri Mohtesham Ismail, you had started the business of disbursements of amounts in India since 1989,; sheet No. 8 and 9 of the documents seized from your residence was related to a person to whom you had made payment on instructions of Shri Mohtesham Ismail, Dubai, but whose name you did not remember, every month you were preparing a serially numbered list from 1 onwards of persons to whom payments had to be made on instructions of Shri Mohtesham Ismail; after making the payments, you used to inform Shri Mohtesham Ismail and destroy the chits of paper on which used to be written names, addresses, amounts and serial numbers, you used to allot new serial numbers from one onwards for the next month; sheet No. 1 and 2 contain the summary of the payments made, to be made; according to Sheet No. 1 on ten occasions payments totalling to Rupees. 1,42,000/- had been made during the first week of July 1990; in sheet No. 2 are written the Sl. Nos. of those people to whom payments have still to be made, you have made a tick (/) mark against some Sl. Nos. 1,42,000/- had been made during the first week of July 1990; in sheet No. 2 are written the Sl. Nos. of those people to whom payments have still to be made, you have made a tick (/) mark against some Sl. Nos. against which payments have been made; the sheets seized from you then people of Indian origin used to go to them for sending amounts to their relatives in India they used to collect these types of amounts in Abu Dhabi in Dirhams and used to give these amounts to one Shri Tabres bhai who was running a tailoring shop (in Abu Dhabi) near their company, he did not remember the P. B. No. of Shri Tabres Bhai who was of Uttar Pradesh; his brother-in-law Shri Muzaffar Kola also used to collect amounts from people in Dubai and used to send these amounts to Shri Tabrezbhai of Abu Dhabi who used to send Rupees to India through some persons, one of the persons to receive amounts in this manner was Shri Alibhai, Gulnar Lungle shop, Bhandi Basaar, Bombay, who used to receive huge amounts for distribution in India; Shri Tabrezbhai asked him whether he could introduce to him any person of Bhatkal who could distribute the amounts received from Shri Tabrezbhai of Abu Dhabi; therefore, he asked Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia, who was studying in Bangalore and his brothers Abdul Rahim Kazia and Mohd. Isa Kazia and Abdul Mateen Kazia to distribute amounts in India (especially in Karnataka and Kerala) whereupon Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia agreed to distribute amounts in India, along with his brothers, as per the instructions from Abudhabi, accordingly Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia and his brothers had been Distributing amounts, Shri Tabrez bhai informed him that you too were distributing amounts in Karnataka and Kerala; he had come to know that Enforcement Officials had searched the residence of Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia agreed to distribute amounts in India, along with his brothers, as per the instructions from Abudhabi, accordingly Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia and his brothers had been Distributing amounts, Shri Tabrez bhai informed him that you too were distributing amounts in Karnataka and Kerala; he had come to know that Enforcement Officials had searched the residence of Shri Mohd. Yousuf Kazia and his brothers and had seized documents relating to amounts distributed in Karnataka and Kerala; he came to India at Bombay on 28-6-90 which he had done on the request of Shri Tabrez bhai, whom he had met on 28-6-90, when Shri Tabres bhai asked him to meet Ali bhai in Bombay and bring the accounts for disbursements of amounts from him; accordingly, Shri Ali bhai met him at Bombay Airport on 28-6-90 and gave him the documents seized and serially numbered from 1 to 16 and 17; Shri Ali bhai requested him to hand over these documents to Shri Tabrezbhai on his return to Abu Dhabi and as per the messages at sheet No. 15 and 17 wherein it is written as "kind attention Shri Ismail", entries such as May 1 103/20 Q 183/5 etc. which meant that as per the accounts maintained in Abu Dhabi payments appearing in sheet No. 103/20, Q 183/5, etc. have not been made and he has been requested to verify these payments, these amounts M/s. Kolaco in Muscat/no. 3 to 27 contain the names and addresses of those Sl. Nos; according to sheet No. 28 wherein you have written as "330388 Babla (5) Bab (500)", you have to pay Rs. 5,500/- to the person having telephone No. 330388; on sheet No. 29 wherein you have written as "264111/264113 R. 302 Maurya" it means that on 10-7-90 you had received a phone call from Shri Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail on your shop telephone No. 235389 and that you have been informed that he was put up in Room No. 302 of Hotel Maurya, and that he desires to know the latest position regarding the disbursements made by you in India on his instructions; and accordingly on 11-7-90, you met him at the said Hotel and gave him the full details about the disbursements made by you; would personally go to the residences of various persons and make payments and for every rupees One Lakh disbursed by him, he would get Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/ -. "the underlining portion in para 8 quoted above were actually part of para 7 and ought to have been at a place in para 7 marked (XXX ). . . . . . . . . . (XXX) by us above in para 7. The aforesaid portion of para 7 actually is part, of the statement of Mohtesham Mohd. Isamil stating as to how people of Indian origin is to go to the said Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail and his brothers for sending amounts to India; the transactions and some of their details were also given. By attributing these facts as coming out of the statement of the detenu it looks as if the detenu knew personally as to how Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail and others organised the entire transaction of disbursing the monies in India at the behest of foreign residents. In reality, statement made by the detenu nowhere disclosed that he knew anything about the modus operendi of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail and his activities abroad. The impression given by the grounds of detention in Hindi version is to convey that the detenu was not at all a mere messenger who carried the monies for disbursement, but was also involved in the larger operation because of his knowledge of those activities. In our view this is a material fact leading to the grounds of detention requiring proper traversal by the detenu while making his representation. Since the grounds thus furnished to the detenu is materially different from the original grounds the material facts stated in the grounds of detention are such that the detenu cannot make any representation effectively against it. We have no option except to direct the release of the detenu. ( 11 ) THE learned Central Government Standing Counsel cited a decision reported in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L. Wadhavan, Addl. Secretary, Govt. of India. AIR 1987 SC 1748 : (1987 Cri LJ 1888 ). The learned Counsel referred to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said decision, but the facts of the said decision are not apposite. The contention therein was that the Detaining Authority failed to apply his mind since there were mis-statements in the grounds of detention. The Supreme Court found that they were not mis-statements at all as could be seen from paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said decision. The contention therein was that the Detaining Authority failed to apply his mind since there were mis-statements in the grounds of detention. The Supreme Court found that they were not mis-statements at all as could be seen from paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said decision. The Supreme Court concluded at paragraph 29 that that so-called factual mis-statements were not mis-statements at all. ( 12 ) THE learned Central Government Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has already challenged the order of detention in Calcutta High Court, but later admitted that the writ petition in the Calcutta High Court was prior to the detention of the detenu and that was filed in anticipation of the detention order. Therefore, we are of the view that the factum of filing the writ petition in the Calcutta High Court is in no way bars the maintainability of the present writ petition. ( 13 ) WRIT petition is accordingly allowed; impugned order of detention is set aside. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .