JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:---By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/detenu seeks to challenge the detention order dated 29th January 1996 passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers vested in him by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980) read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. NSA 2395/1/SPL-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, detaining him under the National Security Act. 2. Since this petition can be disposed off on a purely legal ground no reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner, contained in the grounds of detention, bearing the same date as the detention order, which were served contemporaneously along with the detention order, on the petitioner on 29-1-1996, is called for. 3. The ground on which this petition, in the contention of Mr. U. N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner/detenu, is liable to succeed is that there is variance in the original grounds of detention which were in English and in the translated grounds of detention which were in Marathi, inasmuch as, in the former there is an averment that the detenu can make a representation against the detention order both to the Central Government and the State Government, in the latter it is mentioned that he can make a representation either to the Central Government or to the State Government. The contention of Mr. Tripathi is that since a legal right vested in the detenu to make a representation both to the Central Government as well as to the State Government, this should also have been mentioned in the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention and the said infirmity in the translation has militated against the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The abovementioned ground contained in paragraph 6(B) of the petition has been replied to in paragraph 9 of the return filed by respondent No. 1. The abovementioned ground contained in paragraph 6(B) of the petition has been replied to in paragraph 9 of the return filed by respondent No. 1. The substance of paragraph 5 in the return of respondent No. 1 is that since the petitioner/detenu knew English and in the English version of the grounds of detention which was supplied to him there is a mention that he could make a representation, both to the Central Government as well as to the State Government, the fundamental right of the petitioner/detenu of making a representation, which flows from Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has not been infringed. In the said paragraph it has also been averred that the detenu made a representation through a very experienced counsel to the State Government and consequently there is no question of any confusion. We have examined the said return, (particularly paragraph 9) filed by the respondent No. 1 and we are constrained to observe that we cannot accept the contention of respondent No. 1. 4. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Vishnu Sahai, J.) was a party in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1348 of 1995, (Shri Surendrakumar Ganeshilal Rajoria v. Shri Satish Sahney and ors)1. [since reported in 1996(2) Mh.LJ. 675 ], relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1987 Cri.L.J. 1787, (Smt. Shashikala K. Rane v. Union of India and ors.)2, observed that translation means a faithful translation and the circumstance that the detenu knew a little English would not exonerate the respondents' from their liability of furnishing a faithful translation. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment this Court observed that once a translation is submitted to the detenu, in spite of the fact that he knew English, he may not refer to the original grounds of detention, which were in English but instead only depend on the translation. We may also mention that in paragraph 17 of the said judgment reported in 1987 Cri.LJ. 1787 (supra) this Court has held that in case the translation is not faithful then the detention order ought to be struck down. We respectfully follow the law laid down in it. 5. We may also mention that in paragraph 17 of the said judgment reported in 1987 Cri.LJ. 1787 (supra) this Court has held that in case the translation is not faithful then the detention order ought to be struck down. We respectfully follow the law laid down in it. 5. In our view the aforesaid infirmity in the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention has occasioned in the denial of the fundamental right of the detenu, conferred by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, to make a representation at the earliest opportunity and has rendered the detention order as unsustainable in law. 6. For the said reasons we are squarely satisfied that the impugned detention order is unsustainable in law and merits to be quashed. 7. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The petitioner/detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----