JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu Farooq @ Firoz Hasan Bhagwan has impugned the detention order dated 8-10-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LsV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 8-10-1998 was served on the detenu on 10-10-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the detention order is based on a C.R. referred to in Ground 4(a-ii) and two in camera statements. Ground 4(a)(ii) refers to C.R. No. 209 of 1998 which was registered on the basis of a F.I.R. lodged by Noor Alam Khalil Khan on 7-4-1998 at Oshiwara Police Station and on the basis of which, a case under sections 363, 366, 368, 342, 376(2)(g), 325, 326 read with 34 read with 25(1)(b) and 25, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act was registered against the detenu and some others. In the F.I.R. of the said C.R. the details of the incident which took place on 7-4-1998 at 10.45 p.m., have been furnished and it has also been mentioned that Noor Alam Khalil Khan was assaulted with sword. 3. The main contention of Mr. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu is one pleaded by him as Ground 6(c) in the petition. In the said ground, it has been pleaded that the petitioner-detenu knows only Hindi and no other language and since the Hindi translation of the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan has not been furnished to him, he has been deprived of his constitutional right of making a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Tripathi also invited our attention to Serial No. 41 of the Compilation to show that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan in arriving at his subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu under the M.P.D.A. Act. 4. Mr. Tripathi also invited our attention to Serial No. 41 of the Compilation to show that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan in arriving at his subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu under the M.P.D.A. Act. 4. Ground 6(c) has been replied to in para 12 of the return of the Detaining Authority and we find that in the said para the Detaining Authority has not disputed:- (a) that the petitioner-detenu only knows Hindi; and (b) that the Hindi translation of the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan was not supplied to him. 5. The Supreme Court in para 7 of the case reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 431, (Smt. Shalini Soni v.Union of India)1, has held that the expression grounds used in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India would include the copies of documents on which the grounds are founded and it would be imperative to supply to the detenu the copies of the said documents also. 6. In our view since:- (a) the Detaining Authority has relied upon the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan in arriving at his subjective satisfaction; (b) has not disputed in his return that the petitioner-detenu only knew Hindi; and (c) has also not disputed that the Hindi translation of injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan was not supplied to the detenu, the petitioner-detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired and this has rendered the detention order unsustainable in law. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and the petitioner-detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----