JUDGMENT - S.K. SHAH, J.:---Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig has impugned the order dated 16-10-2001, passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, the 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) (hereinafter referred to as “the M.P.D.A. Act”). 2. The order of detention is founded on two CR's, namely C.R. No. 107/2001 for offence under sections 452, 324, 323, 504, 506(ii), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Byculla Police Station, on the basis of the complaint filed by Shri Mohmed Atahar Faruqui; and C.R. No. 211/2001, for offence punishable under sections 452, 387, 504 of Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Byculla Police Station, on the basis of a complaint of Mohammed Irbahim Ali and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded on 14-7-2001 and 1-8-2001, respectively. 3. The order of detention and the grounds of detention, which are also dated 16-10-2001, were served on the detenu alongwith the copies of the documents relied upon the Detaining Authority. The detention order is challenged on various grounds, pleaded in the petition numbered from Ground No. 6(A) to 6(D). Since, the learned Counsel Mr. U.N. Tripathi, on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, has pressed before us only Ground 6(A), we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge. We are also not adverting to the details of the two incidents contained in two C.R's and two in-camera statements, as stated above as in our view they are not necessary for deciding Ground 6(A) pressed before us on behalf of the petitioner-detenu. 4. Ground 6(A) reads thus:- “The petitioner says and submits that the detenu has been furnished Hindi translation of the Original order, grounds of detention and all other documents of the compilation to enable him to make effective and purposeful representation. The petitioner says and submits that the Hindi translation of the order of detention, a copy of which is furnished to the detenu (at page No. 3 of compilation) is not the true and correct translation of its counterpart original order in English rather misleading and confusing. The petitioner says and submits that the Hindi translation of the order of detention, a copy of which is furnished to the detenu (at page No. 3 of compilation) is not the true and correct translation of its counterpart original order in English rather misleading and confusing. The petitioner says and submits that in the first paragraph of the Hindi version of the order, it is stated that the Commissioner of Police is satisfied with respect to a person known as Shri Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig, hence it is necessary to make an order for his detention, whereas in the second paragraph of the Hindi Version it is stated that the Commissioner of Police directs that Shri Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar be detained. The petitioner says and submits that this amounts to non-communication of the order of detention. The petitioner who is well conversant with Hindi and has relied on the Hindi translation of the order, is confused when compared with its original. This also shows the non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside." 5. Ground No. 6(A) has been replied to by respondent No. 1 in para 7 of his return, which reads as under :- “7. With reference to para No. 6(A) of the petition, it is submitted that the detenu is residing in Mumbai since his birth i.e. from last 38 years. Hence, the detenu is well conversant and he can read and write Hindi, Marathi and English languages. It is further submitted that since the detenu's mother tongue is Urdu language therefore, the detenu was furnished with all the documents alongwith its translation in Hindi language which is the language known to the detenu. It is submitted that the detenu has been furnished with true, correct and faithful and legible copy of the documents translated in Hindi language which is the language known to the detenu. It is submitted that the detenu was explained the contents of all the documents in Hindi language. It is further submitted that the detenu has signed in English language as an acknowledgment of having received the said documents alongwith it's translation. It is submitted that the detenu was explained the contents of all the documents in Hindi language. It is further submitted that the detenu has signed in English language as an acknowledgment of having received the said documents alongwith it's translation. It is submitted that the detenu has been conveyed true, correct, faithful meaning of the documents referred to and relied upon by me for issuing the order of detention in order to enable the detenu to make effective and purposeful representation. It is submitted that in the opening para of the order of detention, it is specifically stated that the order is issued in the name of the detenu and the residential address of the detenu is also stated. It is further stated that the order of detention is issued in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further stated that the order of detention is issued under the M.P.D.A. Act. It is submitted that in the second para of the order of detention states about in exercise of the power conferred under section 3 sub-section (1) of the Act r.w. the Government order, the Commissioner of Police, Br. Mumbai directs that the detenu be detained under the Act. It is submitted that in the translated order of detention in Hindi language in the second para instead of the name of the detenu due to typographical error some other name is stated. It is submitted that the detenu has been furnished with the order of detention, committal order, grounds of detention and documents alongwith it's translation in Hindi language which is the language known to the detenu order to enable the detenu to make effective and purposeful representation. It is submitted that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detenu's right is not violated as the detenu has been communicated with the grounds of detention and the documents alongwith its translation in Hindi language which is the language known to the detenu in order to enable the detenu the earliest opportunity to make effective representation against the said order. It is submitted that the order of detention is based on 4 C.R's vide C.R. No. 107 of 2001 under sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506(ii) r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code registered by Byculla Police Station and C.R. No. 211 of 2001 under sections 387, 452, 504 of Indian Penal Code r.w. sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act registered by the Byculla Police Station and 2 in-camera statements of witnesses A and B recorded on 14-7-2001 and 1-8-2001 which are of extortion. It is submitted that all the documents on the basis of which the detenu would make effective and purposeful representation has been furnished to him alongwith its translation in Hindi language which is the language known to the detenu. Hence, it is denied that the topographical error in the order of detention is misleading and confusing the detenu. It is further denied that there is non-communication of the order of detention. It is further denied that there is non-application of mind on my part as a Detaining Authority. It is further denied that the order of detention is illegal, bad in law and ought to be quashed and set aside. Thus, there is no substance in the say of the petitioner in this para.” 6. We have heard Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Ms. Aruna Kamat, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Tripathi vehemently submitted that since in the Hindi translation of the order of detention, in second paragraph, there was name of one Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar, who was directed to be arrested detenu was confused whether that order relates to him or that person by name Sanmongam and that the said translation was misleading and confusing. Therefore, it amounted to non communication of the order of detention. He also submitted that it also amounted to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. As such, the fundamental right, which was guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective and purposeful representation at the earliest opportunity has been impaired. Therefore, the detention order was illegal and bad in law and is to be quashed and set aside. As against this, learned A.P.P. Ms. As such, the fundamental right, which was guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective and purposeful representation at the earliest opportunity has been impaired. Therefore, the detention order was illegal and bad in law and is to be quashed and set aside. As against this, learned A.P.P. Ms. Kamat submitted that the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention and the documents supplied to the detenu, will have to be read conjointly and such a reading would leave no confusion in the mind of the detenu, whether or not the detention order is related to him and in fact he was detained under the said order. She also further submitted that since the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon, were correctly furnished to the detenu, his fundamental right to make an effective and purposeful representation at the earliest opportunity, guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, cannot be said to have impaired as there was no confusion that the detention order was related to him and him only. 7. In order of properly appreciate the rival contentions for the parties at bar, it is necessary to understood the exact nature of wrong Hindi translation of the detention order. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Hindi translation of grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for the same were served upon the detenu, where there is absolutely no mistake. The mistake has occurred only in the translation of the detention order. In Hindi translation of the first paragraph of the detention order, however, there is absolute no mistake. The 2nd paragraph translated in Hindi is also exactly the same except the name. Name of Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar is typed instead of the name of Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig. The mistake has occurred only in the translation of the detention order. In Hindi translation of the first paragraph of the detention order, however, there is absolute no mistake. The 2nd paragraph translated in Hindi is also exactly the same except the name. Name of Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar is typed instead of the name of Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig. The second paragraph in English language reads as under :- “Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, read with Government order, Home Department (Special) No. DDS 1301/1/SPL-3(B) dated the 27th July, 2001 the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, hereby directs that the said Shri Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig be detained under the said Act.” Thus, in the second paragraph of the original English order of detention, there is direction to detain the detenu Samiulla Abdul Razak Baig whereas in Hindi translation there is direction to detain one Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar @ Sundar. A perusal of both the paragraph quoted above, it appears that there is only mistake in mentioning the name in second para in Hindi translation and instead of giving the name of the present detenu, name of Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar has been mentioned. In the above factual matrix, a short question is that, whether there could be confusion in the mind of the detenu whether the order relates to him or the said Sanmogam @ Sundar and whether he was confused in exercising his fundamental right of making an effective and purposeful representation at the earliest opportunity, guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India? We have reflected over the issues and we are of the view that there could be no confusion in the mind of the detenu whether or not order relates to him. Although there is mistake in writing the name of the person sought to be detained, in second paragraph of the Hindi translation of the order, the perusal of the original grounds of detention order in English, their Hindi translation as also the documents and the original detention order in English, would show that there could absolutely be no confusion in the mind of the detenu that the order related to him and none else. Therefore there could have been no difficulty for him to make an effective and purposeful representation at the earliest opportunity, guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Grounds and copies of the documents that were supplied to the detenu, in English and translation of the grounds of detention in Hindi, were perfect, without any mistake. To appreciate the submissions of behalf of the parties in their proper perspective, we would like to extract the relevant Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The said Article reads thus :- “Article 22(5) : When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.” Therefore, what is guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is that (i) the authority making an order shall be soon as may be communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which the order has been made and (ii) shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the said order. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the grounds of detention and the documents that were furnished to the detenu were in English as well as its Hindi translation was furnished to the detenu. There is also no dispute as to the fact that the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention and the documents, were correctly furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, obvious that the detenu could not have been confused in making a representation with regard to the order passed on the basis of grounds of detention. 9. In our view, the detenu clearly understood that the order of detention was concerning him and him alone and not the person named in the second paragraph of the Hindi translation, namely, Sanmogam @ Sundar. The first paragraph of the order of detention specifically mentions that the order is issued in the name of the detenu, giving his residential address. First paragraph further stated that the order was issued to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the order was issued under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act. First paragraph further stated that the order was issued to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the order was issued under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act. We are further of the view that second paragraph of the order of detention cannot be read in isolation but the same shall have to be read alongwith the first paragraph of the detention order and also alongwith the grounds of detention and the documents pertaining to them, which were correctly furnished to the detenu, in Hindi language, a language known to the detenu. Conjoint reading of the 2nd paragraph of the order of detention alongwith its first paragraph and the grounds of detention as also the documents furnished to the detenu, unequivocally make it clear to the detenu that the order of detention is related to him and no one else. Even Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar @ Sundar. As this was clear to the detenu, he had no difficulty in making the representation against the said order. It is to be noted that the grounds of detention were addressed to the detenu. The para 4, wherein grounds are mentioned, clearly stated detenu's involvement in the two C.R's two in-camera statements, leaving no manner of doubt that order was to detain the detenu and not Sanmogam Subaya Mupnar @ Sundar, who is wrongly referred to in paragraph 2 of the order. 8. To buttress his arguments as discussed, Mr. Tripathi placed reliance on four citations, two of Apex Court, one of this Court and one of Rajasthan High Court. We shall deal with them, one after the other. The first decision is of the Apex Court, rendered in case of (Union of India v. Shantaram Gajanan Kanekar)1, reported in 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 571. In the said decision, the relevant observations are as under:- “........... The principal objection raised on behalf of the detenu before the High Court was that the Marathi version of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Act did not tally with its counterpart in English and due to that defect, the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The High Court, on facts, found that the two versions of the declaration did not tally with each other. The High Court, on facts, found that the two versions of the declaration did not tally with each other. The High Court found that the translated version of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Act was defective and opined that it was not possible for the detenu to make an effective representation. The order of detention was, therefore, quashed.” Thus, it would be seen that in the case before Apex Court, it was found that due to the defect in translation, it was not possible for the detenu to make an effective representation. Such is not a fact in the instant case before us. Here in this case, it was clear to the knowledge of the detenu that the detention order related to him and that there was no difficulty for him to make the representation, as the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon, were correctly furnished to him in a language known to him i.e. Hindi. 9. The second Apex Court's decision rendered in case of (Vijay Kumar Dharna Alias Koka v. Union of India)2, reported in 1990(1) Supreme Court Cases 606, relied upon by Mr. Tripathi, where in the translation in regional language, necessity of detention was stated in the detention order to prevent the detenu from smuggling and abetting the smuggling under section 3(1)(i) (ii) of COFEPOSA Act. But the necessity stated in the grounds of detention was to prevent the detenu from concealing, transporting smuggled goods, falling under section 3(1)(ii) and (iv) of that Act. Thus, on the facts of that case, it was held that the discrepancy caused confusion, as a result of which detenu was unable to make effective representation. However, the facts of the case before the Apex Court and that of the case before us are different. Hence, the said ruling is of no use for the petitioner. 10. The third decision, which has been rendered by this Court, is case of (Shashikala v. UOI)3, 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 617 . In the said case in the order of detention, there was omission of word “engaging” as used in section 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act and, therefore, the Court held that there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. Thus, it would be seen that the Detaining Authority did not apply its mind whether the detenu was engaged or otherwise in smuggling activities etc. Thus, it would be seen that the Detaining Authority did not apply its mind whether the detenu was engaged or otherwise in smuggling activities etc. In the instant case before us, however, that is not the case. It is quite clear from the detention order that it was the petitioner detenu, who was indulging in prejudicial activities, as contemplated under the M.P.D.A. Act and, there was satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from committing such prejudicial activities. Therefore, thus ruling also cannot extend aid to the submissions of Mr. Tripathi. 11. The last decision relied upon by Mr. Tripath is of Rajasthan High Court in case of (Dilip Kumar Jain v. UOI)4, reported in 1996 Criminal Law Journal 547. In the said case there was contradiction in English and Hindi version of the detention order. There also the words “engaging in smuggling of the goods” were missing in the English version and in Hindi version, it was specifically mentioned “to prevent the detenu from smuggling or concealing the smuggled goods, transporting or abetting the smuggling of goods in future”. It was therefore, held that the detention order was passed in complete disregard with the provisions of section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. But the facts and circumstances of the case before us are totally different and therefore, this ruling has also no application to the facts of the present case before us. 12. On the contrary, we are fortified in our view by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of (Devji Vallabhbhai v. Administrator, Goa, Daman Diu)5, reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1029. In that case, the order of detention was not at all furnished to the detenu in the language known to him, namely, Gujarathi. While dealing with this lacuna, the Apex Court held as under:- “So far as the nonsupply the Gujarathi version of the order as per Annexure “A” is concerned, in our opinion, there has been no violation of Article 22(5) or any other law. The order as are Annexure 'A' was a mere formal recital of section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, showing the provision of law under which the order of detention has been made........” 13. The order as are Annexure 'A' was a mere formal recital of section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, showing the provision of law under which the order of detention has been made........” 13. In the instant case before us, the Hindi translation of the detention order has been supplied to the detenu alongwith the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon. The only question is whether the petitioner-detenu could be said to have been confused by wrong mentioning of name in the second paragraph of the order of detention. To repeat, there could be no confusion in the mind of the detenu that the order related to him only, which would be clear from the conjoint reading of the order of detention as also the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon, supplied to the detenu. 14. A perusal of the facts of the case before us, in our view, there could no case of non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. It has to be noted that the mistake has occurred in translation and not in the original order of detention. Moreover, the conjoint reading as stated above, of the order of detention and the grounds of detention and the documents, would make it manifest that the detention order was against the detenue, who was detained under the said order. 15. In view of the above factual matrix, we find no substance in Ground 6(C) pressed before us by Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner-detenu. No other ground has been pressed before us. 16. In the result, we dismiss this writ petition. Rule discharged accordingly. Writ petition dismissed. -----