Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.K.Subramanian, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ of habeas corpus challenging the order of detention dated 3.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai directing the preventive detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 read with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.1.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act. 3. Even though several contentions have been raised by the petitioner, it is unnecessary to deal with all such contentions. One of the main contentions of the petitioner is to the effect that in the Tamil version of the order of detention, the reference was made to the order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.10.2003 authorising the Commissioner, Greater Chennai under Section 3(2) of the said Act to exercise the power of preventive detention, whereas in the detention order in English, the reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.1.2003. After the petitioner was taken into custody, a representation was made by the petitioner and subsequently a representation was also made by his wife. In such representations, it was specifically pointed out that there was discrepancy in the detention order given in Tamil. Such representations were rejected stating that correct Tamil version was given. In this writ petition, it has been specifically mentioned that because of such discrepancy, there was confusion in the mind of the detenu and he could not make an effective representation. Even though such specific stand has been taken in the grounds, namely, ground Nos.4, 5 and 8, in the counter affidavit, apart from simply denying, no details have been given. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that in fact, the correct date of the G.O.Ms.No.4 is 18.1.2003 which had been correctly reflected in the English version of the detention order, but there has been typographical error in the Tamil version of the order and by mistake, reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.10.2003. 4. The original detention order in Tamil received by the party has been produced before us which clearly indicates that reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.10.2003. 4. The original detention order in Tamil received by the party has been produced before us which clearly indicates that reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 18.10.2003. Thus, the detention order itself indicates that there has been non-application of mind at the stage of signing of the order of detention which was in Tamil, even though the English order has been correctly passed. The detention order had been passed in April, 2003 and obviously, there could not have been a G.O.Ms.No.4 issued in October, 2003. When the petitioner specifically pointed out such discrepancy in his representations, it was simply negatived by stating that correct Tamil order has been furnished. Even in the counter affidavit, it is not indicated that there was a typographic mistake in the Tamil order. 5. When the question of liberty of a citizen is concerned, the detention order has to comply with all technical requirements and the existence of a slightest doubt regarding the application of mind would vitiate such order of preventive detention. Moreover, in the present case, in spite of the repeated representations made by the petitioner, the correct position was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner studied upto IX standard and he must be conversant with English. Even assuming that he studied upto IX standard and therefore, he knows English, when there was difference with reference to the G.O. between the order given in Tamil version and English version, there was scope for confusion in the mind of the detenu and in spite of repeated representations, such confusion was never clarified. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to quash the order of detention. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.