JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:-The petitioner is the father of the detenu one Chand alias Raju Sohrab Khan. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are implicitly satisfied that on account of the discrepancy between the original ground of detention in English and the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, the detenu was prevented from exercising his right of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in respect of the preventive detention order clamped on him by the 2nd respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of the section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootlegger, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996). 2. Mrs. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to ground to No. 4(a-xiv) of the grounds of detention which reads thus : "4(a-xiv) on 29-8-1997, you and your associate Ravi Sharma were placed before the Ld. M.M. 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai when you both were remanded to police custody till 5-9-1997 and then till 6-10-1997 without pronouncing any bail order. However, you made bail application to Ld. Court. On 24-9-1997 considering your said bail application in spite of objection from Police the Ld. Court ordered you to be released on bail in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety. You availed bail facility on 29-9-1997." 3. She also drew our attention to the Hindi translation of the said ground of detention (the same being necessary because the detenu did not know English), wherein in place you and your associate Ravi Sharma, in the first line of the ground, it has been mentioned "you and your associate Chand Khan". She also drew our attention to the last line of the said ground in English which mentions "you availed bail facility on 29-9-1997" and invited our attention to the translation which mentions that the detenu had availed of the bail facility on 1-10-1997. 4. In our judgment in view of the two discrepancies between ground 4(a-xiv) in English and the translation in Hindi Mrs. Ansari is justified in canvassing that the impugned detention order is vitiated on the ground that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. To lend force to her submission Mrs. In our judgment in view of the two discrepancies between ground 4(a-xiv) in English and the translation in Hindi Mrs. Ansari is justified in canvassing that the impugned detention order is vitiated on the ground that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. To lend force to her submission Mrs. Ansari invited our attention to paras 3 and 4 of the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1184, (Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Koka v. Union of India and others)1. A perusal of the said decision shows that the grounds of detention were in English but since the detenu did not know English and Knew Gurmukhi, translation in Gurmukhi was furnished to him and between the English version of the grounds of detention and the translation in Gurmukhi there was variance. In the Gurmukhi translation of the grounds of detention the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was under Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. However, in the grounds of detention in English the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was in terms of Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 3(1) of the said Act. In view of this discrepancy the Supreme Court found that the detenu was prevented from exercising his right of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and consequently quashed the impugned detention order. 5. In our view the ratio laid down in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1184 (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case and consequently we feel that the impugned detention order has to be quashed. 6. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu Chand alias Raju Sohrab Ali Khan is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----