JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:--Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu impugns the detention order dated 12-10-1998 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. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996). The detention order along with grounds of detention also dated 12-10-1998 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 18-10-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention have been annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition. 2. We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner-detenu and Mr. S.G. Deshmukh Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Although in this writ petition a large number of grounds have been pleaded in para 9 of the petition but, since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on grounds pleaded as (D) and (E) in the aforesaid para, we are not adverting to the other grounds. For the same reason, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu as contained in the grounds of detention. Ground (D) in short is that the Hindi translation of all the documents, excepting documents at page Nos. 81, 83 and 85, 111 to 115 of the compilation was furnished to the petitioner-detenu and since the Hindi translation of the said documents was not furnished to him, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired. Ground (E) in short is that the documents at pages 81, 83 and 85 of the compilation submitted to the petitioner-detenu are illegible either wholly or partly and consequently he was deprived of his right of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 3. Grounds (D) and (E) have been replied to in paras 9 and 10 respectively of the return of the Detaining Authority. In para 9, the Detaining Authority does not dispute that the Hindi translation of the document at page 81 of the Compilation was not supplied to the petitioner-detenu. He has urged that since the petitioner-detenu was not prejudiced by its non-supply, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired. 4. In para 9, the Detaining Authority does not dispute that the Hindi translation of the document at page 81 of the Compilation was not supplied to the petitioner-detenu. He has urged that since the petitioner-detenu was not prejudiced by its non-supply, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired. 4. We have perused Ground (D) and the reply of the Detaining Authority and we are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in the latter. Document at page 81 of the Compilation a xerox copy of which has been filed as Annexure F to the petition is a document showing the handing over and taking of the possession of the land situated in Malad, village Borivali Mumbai by the representatives of the Divisional Forest Officer, Borivali National Park, Mumbai. In our view, the said document was a vital document and the failure to supply to the detenu its Hindi translation impaired his effective right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 5. Ground (E) has been replied to in para 10 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein he has mentioned that inasmuch as legible and readable copies of the documents at pages 81, 83 and 85 were supplied to the petitioner-detenu, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired. The xerox copy of the document at page 81 of the compilation has been annexed as Annexure F to the petition. A perusal of Annexure F shows that a part of it is illegible. To lend force to his submission, Mr. Tripathi also showed us the original document contained at page 81 of the Compilation. We also find that the original is partly illegible. In such a situation, we feel that the petitioner-detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired. 6. In the result, we allow this writ petition; quash the impugned order; and direct that the petitioner-detenu Firoz Afasar Khan be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----