N. C. Jain, J. -The petitioner by way of this petition challenged the detention order (Annexure A) passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati on 26.7.99. Although several grounds have been taken in the writ petition yet it is unnecessary for us to opine about all the grounds and it would be sufficient to quash the detention order only one ground. 2. It has been argued by the counsel that the documents supplied to the petitioner which have been placed on the judicial file are not legible. We, after taking the relevant documents from the counsel for the petitioner have examined the same. Most of the documents are not legible. In fact the petitioner while making a representation did specify there in that the documents are not legible and readable. Despite his request for supplying the legible documents, nothing was done in this direction by the State of Assam or the concerned authorities. 3. The detention order was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh vs. Union of India & others, (1987) 2 SCC 234 on similar ground. The following observations of the Apex Court can be reproduced with advantage : “He made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies of documents which were supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to have been made by him "for supply of legible copies of documents. There is a controversy whether this representation was made on May 8,1986 or May 12,1986. From the original files produced before us we find that the representation was typed on May 8,1986, but actually signed by the detenu on May 12,1986. But that would not make any difference' for the. purpose of this case. On May 19,1986 the Under Secretary to the Govt of India, Secretary to the Govt of India conceded the demand of the detenu for legible copies of documents and directed the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was sent to the detenu and was acknowledged by him, on May 21,1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. A copy of this letter was sent to the detenu and was acknowledged by him, on May 21,1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on July 1,1986 whereas according to the counter affidavit of Sri SK Chowdhury, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the documents were supplied on June 21,1986. It does not make any difference whether the documents were supplied on June 21, 1986 or only July 1,1986 since we find that even before legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the detention order was confirmed on June 14,1986. The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was therefore a clear contravention of right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution.” 4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed. The petitioner is set at liberty until and unless he is wanted in any other case.