P.D.Dinakaran, J.: The cousin of the detenu is the petitioner herein who challenges the order of detention dated 12.1.2004 passed by the second respondent under Sec.3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (for short “the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”). 2. The detenu is alleged to have been involved in three prohibition offences. The ground case has been registered in Crime No. 16 of 2004 on the file of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kallakurichi for the offences punishable under Secs.4(1)(a), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 3. On the basis of the materials before the detaining authority, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence passed the order of detention. The said order is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on the main ground that the impugned order of preventive detention has not been correctly translated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the detaining authority in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, observed as under: “.. there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail for the offence under Secs.4(1)(a), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 the accused are enlarged on bail by the same court or by the Superior Court after lapse of some time, if he file bail application”, while translating the above ground of detention the words “if he file bail application” is not translated. The relevant portion of the Tamil translation reads as under: 5. A reading of the detention order and its vernacular version makes it clear that in the Tamil translated copy, the detaining authority failed to translate the words “if he file bail application”. 6. The relevant portion of the Tamil translation reads as under: 5. A reading of the detention order and its vernacular version makes it clear that in the Tamil translated copy, the detaining authority failed to translate the words “if he file bail application”. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is squarely governed by the decision of this Court in Thangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000)2 M.W.N. (Crl.) 16, on the ground that the petitioner was not in a position to make his effective representation as to the imminent possibility of coming out on bail, particularly when the petitioner is not acquainted with English language and he has to read only the Tamil copy of the detention order which was served on him and which does not speak about the imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, if he files bail application, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the detenu was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case by providing the correct translated copy of the detention order. The corollary thereof is that further detention must necessarily be disallowed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of detention dated 12.1.2004. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other matter.