P.Shanmugam, J.: The petitioner is the wife of one Mani alias Seenivasan, who is detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The order of detention No.20 of 2000 dated 26.4.2000 is under challenge. 2. The two main grounds raised against the order of detention are as follows: (i) The petitioner made a representation on 3.5.2000 to the Central Government and the same was not disposed of expeditiously. (ii) The detention order in Tamil was not properly translated and it contains several contradictions due to which an effective representation could not be given by the detenu. Though the other grounds relating to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was raised, it was not pursued further. 3. Before we go into grounds raised, the bare facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: On 13.4.2000, a special team under the head of Civil Supplies, C.I.D., intercepted lorry bearing registration No.KL-10-6303 at Kodai Road in front of Kodai Road Railway Station. Though the vehicle did not stop, it was chased, stopped and found carrying rice intended for Public Distribution System. On enquiry, the driver of lorry one Manickam gave a confession stating that the regular Public Distribution System rice smugglers Mani alias Seenivasan and Ali alias Mohammed Ali of Anaimalai sent him in the lorry with a cleaner to Madurai on 12.4.2000 to fetch 100 bags PDS rice from regular PDS rice sellers Kalyani and Sekar alias Chandrasekar of Madurai in order to bring the PDS rice to Pollachi so as to sell the same in Kerala for higher rate of prices by giving false bills to him. On that basis, he went to Madurai and loaded 100 bags of PDS rice from Kalyani and Sekar alias Chandrasekar of Madurai from their godown and proceeded to Pollachi. On 13.4.2000 early morning at 3.00 hours in front of Kodai Road Railway Station, it was caught by the police. The driver and the cleaner were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai on 13.4.2000 and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. The detenu was arrested on 13.4.2000 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. The driver and the cleaner were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai on 13.4.2000 and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. The detenu was arrested on 13.4.2000 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. Apart from them, one Kalyani and his employer Sekar alias Chandrasekar were also arrested and confession statements were recorded from them and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and lodged at Central Prison, Madurai. Investigation revealed that Sekar alias Chandrasekar had a godown at Madurai in which he had stored 100 bags of PDS rice. The driver Manickam produced two bills at the time of checking the lorry at Kodai Road and it was found to be bogus. As per the said Bills, it was found that the PDS rice was transported from Sri Meenachiamman Traders, Madurai-II to Sri Balaji Traders, Anaimalai, etc. On investigation the address of both the shops and their licence numbers were found to be false. The Quality Control Assistant Manager, TNCSC, Dindigul certified that the 100 bags of rice seized were PDS rice which were kept in TNCSC godown, Dindigul. Kalyani and Sekar alias Chandrasekar collected PDS rice for Rs.4 per kilogram and sold the same at Rs.5 per kilogram to the detenu Mani alias Seenivasan and Ali alias Mohammed Ali of Anaimalai, Pollachi so as to smuggle the same to Kerala and to sell the same at Rs.10 per kilogram or more than that in Palghat rice market to the highest bidder. On that basis, the Detaining Authority has come to the satisfaction that he is liable to be detained as per the provision of Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. 4. From the facts of the case, it is seen that the materials placed before the Detaining Authority spell out the modus operandi of the detenu along with other persons in committing the offences of purchasing ration rice illegally at meager cost, storing it in a godown and intended to sell it in the black market at higher cost by smuggling it to Kerala and producing bogus bills and certificate. Therefore, we are satisfied that there are sufficient materials placed before the Detaining Authority for coming to the satisfaction for detention of the detenu. Therefore, we are satisfied that there are sufficient materials placed before the Detaining Authority for coming to the satisfaction for detention of the detenu. As a matter of fact, the subjective satisfaction is not being seriously pursued by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Coming to the first ground, the delay in considering the representation, the learned Public Prosecutor furnished details of various dates on which the representation were processed which is extracted as follows: Approved by the Collector, Dindigul on 8.6.2000 Report despatched on 9.6.2000 10.6.2000 and 11.6.2000 being the Government Holidays for Saturday and Sunday. After postal delay the Government received on 13.6.2000 The report seen by the Assistant Section Officer and Section Officer on 14.6.2000 15.6.2000 being Government Holiday for Meeladi Nabi. The report seen by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 16.6.2000 17.6.2000 and 18.6.2000 being the Government Holidays Saturday and Sunday. The report was despatched to the Government of India on 19.6.2000 A perusal of the particulars will clearly reveal that there is no delay and even there is any delay, it is properly explained. 6. The second main ground raised and seriously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is relating to the variation found in the order of detention both in English and Tamil versions. This relates to paragraph 3 of the order. Para.3 of the order in English version is as follows: “3. Hence, I am satisfied that Thiru R.Mani alias Seenivasan of Anaimalai, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore, had committed the offences by purchasing ration rice illegally at meager cost and storing in a godown and selling it in the black market at higher cost with a view to getting more pecuniary gains and as such, he is a black marketer as contemplated under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. By committing the above described grave crime by selling the rice kept for public distribution system at a higher price. The deserving and eligible ration card holders are deprived of essential commodities of the fair price shop. Common people are adversely affected by these types of irregularities being committed by Thiru R.Mani alias Seenivasan, thus he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of commodities essential to the community.” 7. The deserving and eligible ration card holders are deprived of essential commodities of the fair price shop. Common people are adversely affected by these types of irregularities being committed by Thiru R.Mani alias Seenivasan, thus he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of commodities essential to the community.” 7. Paragraph 3 in Tamil version states that the detenu has purchased ration rice intended forPublic Distribution System illegally for the purpose of smuggling it to Kerala and sell it in black market at higher price and to secure more income. By this process, the public who are benefited by the distribution of essential commodities of rice is affected. Because of this section, detenu is liable to be termed as black marketeer and he can be proceeded with under Sec.3(1) of the said Act on being satisfied. Paragraph 3 of Tamil version is as follows: 8. From the reading of the above paragraph of both English and Tamil versions, there is omission of the word ‘smuggling to Kerala’ in English. In this respect, learned Public Prosecutor took us through the previous paragraph where the materials were placed before the Detaining Authority on the modus operandi of the detenu. Those materials clearly state that the petitioner has purchased ration rice illegally from one Sekar alias Chandrasekar for a lesser price and transported it in the lorry for the purpose of smuggling it to Kerala and to sell it at higher price. Therefore, from the reading of the previous para, the materials both in English and Tamil for the purpose of satisfaction under Sec.3(1) has clearly been established. The omission of the word in English with reference to smuggling to Kerala, in our view, was not so material so as to raise any prejudice or infirmity, especially when the detenu was known Tamil and all particulars have been given in the Tamil version. 9. In support of the detention order, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the abovesaid variation does not affect the rights of the detenu in making his representation and that no prejudice is caused to the detenu by virtue of this variation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on a decision in A.Alangarsamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1987)3 S.C.C. 159 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “We have considered the matter ourselves. We are also not impressed with this submission. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on a decision in A.Alangarsamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1987)3 S.C.C. 159 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “We have considered the matter ourselves. We are also not impressed with this submission. This alleged difference between the two versions is not consequential. The order of detention and grounds accompanied clearly spelt out why the detenu was being detained. We are not persuaded to hold that the two versions are so different as to cause any prejudice to the detenu. We, therefore, agree with the High Court and dismiss the appeal.” 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has also cited the following decisions to support his contention: (1) Binod Bihari v. State of Bihar, 1974 Crl.L.J. 1457. (2) Kavita v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 S.C.C. (Crl.) 743. (3) Sushila v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 Crl.L.J. 1526. (4) Pushpadevi v. M.L.Wadhavan, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1748. (5) Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 1988 S.C.C. (Crl.) 575. (6) Rumana Begum v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Crl.L.J. 3512. (7) Hawabi Sayed Arif Sayed Hanif v. Hmingliana, 1993 S.C.C. (Crl.) 305. (8) Abdul Rehiman v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 83. (9) Order of this Court in H.C.P.No.1881 of 1998 dated 1.7.1999. 11. By going through the abovesaid decisions, the following principles have been culled out: (i) The totality of the context has to be taken into account. (ii) There cannot be any generalisation that in a particular set of circumstances, non-application of mind should be presumed. Everything should depend upon the nature of the allegations made. (iii) The law does not ignore a mistake here or a mistake there. A mere mistake would not be a proof of non-application of mind. (iv) The infirmities pointed out should be so material or serious in nature so as to vitiate the impugned order of detention. (v) There may be a substantial variance justifying the submission that there was such wide divergence as to justify the likelihood of the detenu being confused because of the differences in the order and or the grounds of detention. (vi) Typographical mistake has, in no way, prejudiced the detenu in making his representation. (vii) When the translated copy does not mislead and when there is no impairment of the right of the detenu, the omission should not have bearing on the validity of the impugned order. (vi) Typographical mistake has, in no way, prejudiced the detenu in making his representation. (vii) When the translated copy does not mislead and when there is no impairment of the right of the detenu, the omission should not have bearing on the validity of the impugned order. (viii) The omission of no consequence which affects the rights of the detenu in making his representation. 12. Keeping the abovesaid principles in mind, we are of the view that the so-called discrepancy is to be taken as a omission and this mistake is in no way caused prejudice to the rights of the detenu. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention referred to the decision in S.Muniappan v. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore District and others, (1998)2 M.W.N. (Crl.) 374. In our view, this judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case because omission of 10 lines, which were found in the English version of the grounds of detention; were not at all found place in the translated Tamil version. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon one other decision in Shashikala v. Union of India, 1987 Crl.L.J. 1787, which is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In the light of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the said variation or omission while translating the English version into Tamil, is in no way vitiate the order of detention, as nothing has been placed before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner to establish any prejudice that has been caused to the detenu in making his representation. No other grounds were raised. 16. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.