S.Jagadeesan, J.: The petitioner is the husband of the detenue. The detenue Tmt.Gracemary was detained as a “bootlegger” under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Since two technical grounds were raised before us, we do not think it is necessary to elaborate the facts in detail. The first ground of attack of the impugned order of detention is, that in the English version of the grounds of detention in paragraph 5 it is stated that the “imminent possibility” that the detenue may come out on bail. In the Tamil translated copy, it is stated that, In the Tamil translated copy there is no mention about the “imminent possibility”, but only a mere possibility has been stated. Hence, the Tamil translation does not convey the correct and true meaning of the English version of the order of detention. As there is variation in the Tamil translated version, the impugned order of detention is vitiated. 3. We carefully considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be pertinent to note that the petitioner has not given any particulars as to how either he or the detenue was prejudiced by the variation in the translated copy of the Tamil version. The variation would affect the order of detention only when it misleads the detenue in making an effective representation as contemplated under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is true, in the English version of the detention order, it has been stated as “imminent possibility”. In the Tamil version also, it is clearly stated that if any bail application is filed there is possibility of the detenue coming out on bail. We do not find any variation in the translated Tamil version of the detention order which caused any prejudice to the detenue in making an effective representation. Hence, we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The only other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the detenue, dated 22.10.1999 was not considered by the authorities. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the file from which we are able to see that the representation is dated 26.10.1999. The same was received on 28.10.1999. On 29.10.1999 the file was made ready. 30th and 31st October, 1999 being Saturday and Sunday, the file was circulated on 1.11.1999. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the file from which we are able to see that the representation is dated 26.10.1999. The same was received on 28.10.1999. On 29.10.1999 the file was made ready. 30th and 31st October, 1999 being Saturday and Sunday, the file was circulated on 1.11.1999. The Under Secretary to Government dealt with the file on 1.11.1999 and sent the same to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary also dealt with the file on the same day and placed the file before the Honourable Law Minister on 2.11.1999. The representation of the detenue was rejected by the Law Minister on 3.11.1999. The copy of the order was also served on the detenue on 13.11.1999. Hence, we are satisfied that the representation of the detenue had been disposed of without any undue delay. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel is without any basis. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.