Judgment :- N. K. JAIN, J. The petitioner/detenu, who has been detained by the order of the first respondent dt. 19-12-1997, labelling him as "forest offender", under S. 3(2) of the Act 14/82, with a view to preventing him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 2. The petitioner has raised grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, but has restricted the ground that only on 27-1-1998 at 5-30 p.m. at Vellore Central Prison, he received a notice stating that the Advisory Board meeting will be held on 28-1-1998 at 12.00 noon at Chennai and due to shortage of time, the petitioner was not able to make proper representation. Learned counsel submits that it is nothing but a mere formality and the matter was decided on 4-2-98, without affording an effective opportunity and it has caused irreparable prejudice. He submits that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground, relying the decision in Rajendra Kumar Verma v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1993 Crl LJ 2590. The other ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged in that what all had been stated in the English version of the grounds of detention had not been properly translated in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, rather some material facts were omitted which prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation. Learned counsel drew our attention, in particular, to paragraphs 3, and 4 at page numbers 5 and 7 of the grounds of detention. He prays for the release of the petitioner, by quashing the impugned order of detention, on the grounds mentioned above. 3. A counter has been filed. It is stated that it is not correct to state that there is variation in the version of Tamil and English grounds of detention. It has been further stated that even in the grounds of detention, it has been clearly stated that the detenu must make his own arrangements for the appearance of his friend before the Advisory Board and sufficient opportunity was given. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued the matter, reiterating the same grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued the matter, reiterating the same grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record. 5. Regarding the first ground, it is important for laws and the authorities that they not only be just, but also appear to be just on a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the detenu has been informed about the Advisory Board meeting at a very late stage, without giving sufficient time to make effective representation. It is also seen, in the facts of the given case that the detenu was not given reasonable opportunity to put forth an effective and reasonable representation before the Advisory Board. 6. So far as other ground viz., correct translated version in Tamil, is not supplied to the detenu, we have asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to go through the disputed English version and Tamil version of the detention order, supplied to the detenu. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to say anything, but, rather admitted that some portion found in the English version of the detention order is missing in the translated Tamil version of the detention order. According, to us, the omission is a fatal one, and it cannot be said to be a mere clerical omission/error. Our attention has been drawn to the whole passage. We find that about ten lines, which were found in the English version of the grounds of detention were not at all found place in the translated Tamil version. The detaining authority concerned, without verifying the correctness and accuracy in the translated version, and without getting any certificate from the authorities concerned regarding its accuracy, has signed in the materials and supplied to the detenue. Certainly, it would tantamount to the non-application of mind of the detaining authority. This Court has no option, but to quash the impugned order of detention. As stated, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on both these grounds. 7. Certainly, it would tantamount to the non-application of mind of the detaining authority. This Court has no option, but to quash the impugned order of detention. As stated, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on both these grounds. 7. Before parting with the case, it is necessary for us to observe that no doubt, this Court in habeas corpus petitions, cannot go into the merits of the case and can only consider and quash the orders on vague grounds, for want of opportunity for not disposing of the representation at the earliest point of time in consonance with the requirement of law under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. This Court, time and again, quash the orders of detention, on technical grounds, viz. not deciding the representation in time, not furnishing the relevant materials English version nor tallying with the Tamil version of the grounds of detention etc. Reference can be made to the decisions of this Court in 1995 (1) Mad LW (Cri) 149, wherein for not supplying the translated version of word, imminent the impugned detention order therein, was quashed. Recently, in our order in H. C. P. No. 79 of 1998 decided on 25-6-1998, while quashing the impugned order of detention therein with observations, directed a copy of the said order be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu for effective consideration and compliance. We are painful to see that authorities concerned, have not taken proper care to comply with the provisions of law, strictly. 8. As stated, in the instant case, about ten lines were missing in the translated Tamil version, which has been supplied to the detenu. Under the compelling circumstances, we deem it proper to give a direction to the detaining authorities concerned, to comply with the requirement of law strictly, in accordance with law, and to be more careful while passing the detention order which involves the liberty of citizens. We are aware that there are difficulties due to number of cases and paucity of time, but as per the requirement of law, it should be decided instantly, by supplying correct and authoritive materials. They should also satisfy themselves that the translated version of the detention order is being supplied to the detenu, in the language known to him, after it had been translated properly, correctly and with accuracy. They should also satisfy themselves that the translated version of the detention order is being supplied to the detenu, in the language known to him, after it had been translated properly, correctly and with accuracy. For that, while signing the order of detention, the detaining authority concerned, should satisfy himself, before supplying the same, that it had been translated into the language known to the detenu, correctly and properly with accuracy, also by obtaining a certificate appended, from the person/authority concerned, who translated the same, so that in the event of the detention order being quashed on such technical grounds, responsibility can be fastened on the erring person/authority concerned, so that the detenu shall not be allowed to flee from justice. Only then, the object of the Act will be achieved to some extent, otherwise the purpose of the Act will be frustrated, even when the original order of detention is just. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, so that he may issue suitable directions, as directed above, to all the authorities concerned. 9. In the result, H.C.P. 157 of 1998 is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the petitioner/detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.