Judgment : K. M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by one Kannamma, wife of the detenu, Gundaiyan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to quash the order of detention and to set the detenu at liberty. ( 2 ) THE detenu came to the adverse notice of the 2nd respondent as a habitual forest offender in view of three cases referred to in the preamble and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot, Ambedkar District at Vellore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot. leggers, Drug Offenders, latest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act. 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), here matter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 3 ) THE facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention have been set out in detail in the ground case and we do not propose to reiterate the same, in view of the plea taken the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bakthavatchalam, confined his argument as regards ground (0) which reads as follows:the translated version of the English grounds of detention and the concerned documents relied upon by the detaining authority is vague, incorrect, insufficient, illegible and confusing. In fact the materials furnished to the detenu is not legible and cleat not able to read or make proper and effective representation. Hence there is no sufficient compliance of constitutional provision under Article 22 (5 ). It is to be noted that the writ petition was admitted on 12/2/1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 30/3/1992. In spite of repeated adjournments, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Thus the pavements made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stand unrebutted. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to documents at pages 27, 33, 55, 57 and 59 and submitted that they were illegible and on account of the same the petitioner was deprived of making effective representation. Thus the pavements made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stand unrebutted. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to documents at pages 27, 33, 55, 57 and 59 and submitted that they were illegible and on account of the same the petitioner was deprived of making effective representation. We have also gone through the documents referred to above and we find that they are illegible. It is not in dispute that those documents are very vital and relevant for the detaining authorities to arrive at the subjective satisfaction before the passing of the order of detention. ( 5 ) IN support of hiscontention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the decision Manjit Singh-Grewal v. Union of India1 wherein the apex court has held as follows: In view of the fact that the copies of-the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings. Similarly in another case Dharmista Bhagat v. State of Karnataka2 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:it is clearly provided in sub-article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India that: 11 (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. therefore, it is imperative that the detaining authority has to serve the grounds of detention which include also all the relevant documents which had been considered in forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority before making the order of detention and referred to in the list of documents accompanying the grounds of detention in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the detaining authority. Therefore, the non-supply of legible copy of this vital document, i.e. , panchanama dated February 12, 1988 in spite of the request made by the detenu to supply the same renders the order of detention illegal and bad. ( 6 ) THE ratio laid down by the Supreme Court Squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the instance case, admittedly, we and the copies of documents supplied to the detenu and in turn relied on by the detaining authority were not legible. This in opt view deprives the detenu in taking an effective representation and as such infringes the detenus right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. On this ground alone, the impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise required. Petition allowed.