JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, the father of one Deepak Devji Velari (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu"), has challenged the detention order passed by Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 12-11-1999 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A.) 2. Although diverse contentions have been raised while assailing the detention order, however, after considering the arguments we find that the present petition should succeed on the sole ground of non-supply of relevant document to the detenu impairing his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation. Hence we have not burdened our judgment with the other contentions. 3. The relevant facts for adjudicating the point in issue are that the impugned detention order was passed on 12-11-1999 and the same was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention on 24-12-1999. The grounds of detention refer to various instances. Para 4(a)(xv) of the grounds refer to the fact that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate's Court for remand on 7-4-1999 and was remanded to police custody till 20-4-1999 without pronouncing any bail order. Reference is also made to the fact that thereafter police custody of the detenu was extended from time to time till 26-4-1999. The relevant portion of the said para is reproduced thus : "4(a)(xv) You were produced before Ld. M.M. 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai for remand on 07-04-99 and you were remanded into police custody till 20-04-99 without pronouncing any bail order. Thereafter your police custody was extended from time to time till 26-04-99." 4. The other relevant assertion in the grounds of detention relied upon by the petitioner is para 6 which states that the Detaining Authority has carefully gone through the material placed before it and was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which implies that the first remand application referred to in ground 4(a)(xv) was relied upon. The relevant portion from para 6 of the grounds of detention is reproduced thus : "6. I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order." 5. The relevant portion from para 6 of the grounds of detention is reproduced thus : "6. I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order." 5. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that while recording subjective satisfaction the Detaining Authority relied upon the contents of the Remand Applications, particularly the first remand application made on 7-4-1999 before the Magistrate's Court; and since the same was originally in Marathi, language not known to the detenu, translation thereof in Gujarati language was supplied to the detenu. The substratum of the grievance made before us is that it was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to furnish the original document in Marathi along with translation furnished to the detenu so that the detenu would have had the advantage of ascertaining whether the translation furnished to him is true and correct translation of the original document so as to enable the detenu to make effective representation. In other words, what is contended is that the detention order not only suffers on the ground of non-supply of vital document but also because of the detenu having been denied the right to make effective representation. The ground raised in the petition in this behalf can be found in ground (T) which reads thus : "(T) The petitioner says and submits that the document at page 487 seems to be a Gujrati translation of a remand application, which copy does not find place in the documents served on the detenu and which has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority in formulating the grounds of detention. Failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to furnish the detenu the copy of the said remand applications relied upon is violative of both the facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India thus, rendering the detenu's detention unconstitutional, unsustainable in law null and void." 6. In response to the said ground the respondents have filed reply affidavit of Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police the Detaining Authority, dated 28-8-2000. Para 29 of the said reply reads thus : "29. With reference to the Ground (T) of the writ petition, it is submitted that page 487 is a Gujarathi translation of remand application, however, the Marathi document is not given to him which is a mistake. Para 29 of the said reply reads thus : "29. With reference to the Ground (T) of the writ petition, it is submitted that page 487 is a Gujarathi translation of remand application, however, the Marathi document is not given to him which is a mistake. It was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is most respectfully submitted that the detenu does not know Marathi and the language known to the detenu i.e. Gujarathi and the said translated document was given to him in Gujarathi. It is thus denied that failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to furnish the detenu the copy of the said remand application is violative of both the facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thus rendering the detenu's detention unconstitutional, unsustainable in law, null and void as alleged." 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings it is contended before us that the detaining authority has virtually conceded that it was mistake on its part in not supplying the original document which was in Marathi but the only explanation offered is that the same was not deliberate or intentional. The further stand taken by the respondents seems to be that the detenu was not conversant with Marathi language and therefore non-supply of the said document in Marathi to the detenu did not violate any of the facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. Besides the aforesaid stand taken on affidavit, the learned A.P.P. for the respondents sought to justify that from the record furnished to the detenu it would be evident that the first page of the original remand application in Marathi was in any case supplied to the detenu along with translation of the entire document in Gujarati. She further submits that it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the detenu in as much as the second remand application contained verbatim same reasons for remand as were mentioned in the second page of the first remand application and copy thereof in Marathi was furnished to the detenu. It is contended that it should be assumed that the detenu was aware of the contents of the first remand application, though not supplied in Marathi language. It is contended that it should be assumed that the detenu was aware of the contents of the first remand application, though not supplied in Marathi language. The learned A.P.P. relied on several decisions in support of the plea that the first remand application was not a vital document and only a passing reference was made thereto in the grounds of detention. Thus, according to the learned A.P.P. non-supply of the original first remand application in Marathi was of no consequence, for the said document was not a vital document but only passing reference was made to the said document and as such non-supply thereof does not affect the genuineness and validity of the detention order in any manner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions to buttress his argument that non-supply of the original document in Marathi, fully or in part, has vitiated the detention order affecting the detenu's right to make effective representation infracting the spirit of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of (1) (Moosa Velliat v. Asstt. Secy., Govt. of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 1246 and (2) (Kusum Mangala Singh v. R.H. Mendonca)2, reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 2363. In the first decision this Court has held that copies of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority not supplied to the detenu in their original language but only translation thereof made available to the detenu has the inevitable effect of impairing the right of the detenu to make an effective representation within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. This Court after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court in para 9 held that : "9. ..... ..... ..... .... .... ... .. .. ... ..... He is also entitled to take the aid and advice of a person who is better situated to appreciate the facts of the case and the language of law. If the friend or the legal practitioner is not conversant with the language in which the documents are supplied in the present case with the Malayalam language, then the so-called right of consultation with a friend or the legal practitioner in the matters of drafting the representation will become wholly illusory. If the friend or the legal practitioner is not conversant with the language in which the documents are supplied in the present case with the Malayalam language, then the so-called right of consultation with a friend or the legal practitioner in the matters of drafting the representation will become wholly illusory. Such a procedure will not be reasonable, fair and just as the detenu is denied reasonable, fair and just as the detenu is denied reasonable opportunity of making effective representation. The procedure followed does not provide a real and meaningful opportunity to the detenu to explain his case to the authorities concerned by making a proper representation. It cannot be forgotten that communicating the grounds of detention in the language which detenu understands is in nature of extention of right and not its curtailment. This additional obligation is cast on the Detaining Authority to make the right more effective, real and meaningful." This Court has further in para 11 observed that : "11. This question has one more aspect. Suppose to an illiterate detenu the grounds of detention and the documents, statements and other materials relied upon, are orally explained, in the language he understands, then in such a case can it be said that the provisions of section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution are complied with only by orally explaining the grounds of detention to the detenu and he need not be supplied with any documents in writing at all. This will run counter to the law laid down by Supreme Court in Lallubhai's case (1981 Cri.L.J. 288) and in (Surjeetsingh v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1153 : 1981 Cri.L.J. 614. The oral explanation of the contents of the documents is in addition to the supply of the documents themselves and not a substitute for it. Similarly while communicating the grounds of detention, furnishing copies of the grounds in the language with which the detenu is conversant, is in addition to the supply of copies of the documents in original language and not a substitute for it. In our opinion unless such a view is taken the very purpose behind Article 22(5) will be frustrated. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based on the original documents placed before it. In our opinion unless such a view is taken the very purpose behind Article 22(5) will be frustrated. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based on the original documents placed before it. Therefore if supply of mere translated copies of documents to the detenu is treated as substantial compliance with the Article 22(5) then in substance the documents placed before the Detaining Authority are not supplied to the detenu at all. This is more so in the field of preventive detention where while exercising peripheral jurisdiction investigation as to the truthfulness of the facts forming the basis of the grounds of detention cannot be embarked." 10. In Kusum Mangala's case (supra), this Court was concerned with the question as to whether supplying of partly illegible copies of some original document vitiated the right of the detenu to make effective representation. This Court observed that it is obligatory on the Detaining Authority to furnish legible copies of original documents alongwith translation. It would be useful to refer to the observations made in paras 4 to 7 of the said decision which read thus: "4. Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the law requires that not only the translated copies of documents supplied to the detenu should be legible but the originals should also be legible. He has urged that this is necessary because, unless legible copies of the original documents are given, the detenu would not be able to ascertain whether the translation is faithful and correct. To support his submission Mr. Tripathi invited our attention to paras 10 and 11 of the Division Bench decision of our Court, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 1246 Moosa Velliat v. Asstt. Secretary Government of Maharashtra. 5. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent true to his customary fairness, admits that the original of the document at page 35 of the compilation which is bail application and bail order in a case under sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, relating to ground Nos. 4(a) to 4(a)(iv) of the grounds of detention, is illegible in part. 6. 4(a) to 4(a)(iv) of the grounds of detention, is illegible in part. 6. In our view, on account of the circumstances, mentioned in paragraph 5 above, the detenu was prevented from ascertaining whether the translated copy given to him was a faithful translation of the original, and thus was deprived of his right to making a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. We wish to emphasise that in the obligation of the respondents to furnish copies of original documents is implicit the obligation that such copies should be legible. 7. Since the copy of the original bail application and the bail order was illegible in part, in our view, the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired." 11. After having examined the aforesaid two decisions, we have no hesitation in accepting the petitioner's challenge that due to non-supply of the second page of the original first remand application which is in Marathi to the detenu has impinged his right to make effective representation within the purport of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. We are not at all impressed by the several decisions which have been relied upon by the learned A.P.P. in support of the stand that first remand application was not a vital document. We take this view having regard to the fact that the grounds of detention particularly 4(a)(xv) clearly refer to the first remand application dated 7-4-1999 and we have every reason to conclude that the said document was relied upon by the Detaining Authority while recording its subjective satisfaction. This position emerges not only from the contents of para 6 of the grounds of detention, but also from the averments in the reply affidavit filed before us, which would show that the Detaining Authority has accepted the mistake of not supplying the original document in Marathi language. There is no assertion in the affidavit filed before us that the Detaining Authority did not rely on the said document while recording its subjective satisfaction. On the other hand the record would show to the contrary that the said document has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority while recording its subjective satisfaction. 12. There is no assertion in the affidavit filed before us that the Detaining Authority did not rely on the said document while recording its subjective satisfaction. On the other hand the record would show to the contrary that the said document has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority while recording its subjective satisfaction. 12. In the circumstances we find no merits in the stand taken by the respondents that the first remand application is not a vital document or that only a passing reference was made to the said document in the grounds of detention. As mentioned above all the authorities cited across the bar on behalf of the respondents were on the proposition that the document which has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority alone requires to be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. As we have already observed that from the record before us it is evident that the first remand application was considered and relied upon by the Detaining Authority in recording its subjective satisfaction, therefore, the same became a vital document. The law as appears to us is that it is obligatory on the Detaining Authority to furnish the original of such a document to the detenu along with grounds of detention in addition to the translation of the said document in the language known to the detenu. 13. With a view to complete the record we would only mention the decisions relied upon by the learned A.P.P. viz., in the cases of (i) (Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra)4, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 911 (Paras 7 8), (ii) (L.M.S. Ummu v. B.B. Gujaral)5, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1191 (Paras 3 to 5), (iii) (Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu)6, 1995 Cri.L.J. 2644 (Para 9), (iv) (Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India)7, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2261 (Paras 7 to 10 and 13), (v) (Kamarunnisa v. Union of India)8, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1640, (vi) (Meena Mahendra Vakharia v. K.L. Verma)9, 1997 All.M.R. Cri. 1172 and (vii) (Nikhil Shah v. Union of India)10, 1995(1) Bom.C.R. 141 . All these decisions are on the proposition that document which is relied upon by the Detaining Authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction alone should be furnished to the detenu as the same is vital document and affects the detenu's right to make effective representation. 1172 and (vii) (Nikhil Shah v. Union of India)10, 1995(1) Bom.C.R. 141 . All these decisions are on the proposition that document which is relied upon by the Detaining Authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction alone should be furnished to the detenu as the same is vital document and affects the detenu's right to make effective representation. Since, on facts, we have already observed that the document in question was relied upon by the Detaining Authority and thus became a vital document it was imperative to supply the original along with translation thereof to the detenu. Admittedly, in the present case the second page of the said document which contained the grounds for remand of the detenu was not supplied to the detenu. Consequently, detenu's right to make effective representation was impaired as observed by this Court in the aforementioned decisions. 14. In the circumstances, we allow this petition; quash and set aside the detention order dated 12-11-1999 passed against the detenu-Deepak Devji Velari and direct that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.