Judgment : P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein is the cousin of the detenu by name Shanmugam. He challenges the impugned order of the detention dated 4.10.2005, detaining his cousin as ‘Bootlegger’ under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention both in English and Tamil versions, would contend that there is variation in the translation and because of the same, the detenu was not in a position to make effective representation. 4. Paragraph 4 of the English version of the grounds of detention reads as under: “4. From the above materials, I am satisfied that Thiru Shanmugam is a “Bootlegger’ selling ID arrack mixed with poisonous substance in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937 and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. I am, therefore satisfied that an order of detention should be passed against the said Thiru Shanmugam forbidding him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, in future.” 5. Paragraph 4 of the Tamil version of grounds of detention reads as follows: 6. As rightly pointed out, reading of the English version shows that the detaining authority was of the view that the detenu is selling I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance, in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. It is clear from the above English version that the detaining authority refers sale of I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance. On the other hand, the Tamil version of the same paragraph shows that the detenu is distilling and selling I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance. In other words, the distillation is not found in English version. It is clear from the above English version that the detaining authority refers sale of I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance. On the other hand, the Tamil version of the same paragraph shows that the detenu is distilling and selling I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance. In other words, the distillation is not found in English version. Though the learned Government Advocate has pointed out that in the earlier paragraphs, the detaining authority has referred both distillation as well as sale of I.D. arrack, we are of the view that in as much as paragraph 4 is relevant, where the detaining authority after satisfying all the materials has concluded that the detenu is to be detained under Act 14 of 1982, the subjective satisfaction must be in all paragraphs, including paragraph 4. 7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ( M. Perumal v. The State of Tamil Nadu). 2004 MLJ. (Crl.) 518 In the said decision, in the English version in ground No.4, the detaining authority has stated that “I am satisfied that Thiru Ganesan is a”Bootlegger“Distillating and selling I.D. arrack mixed with poisonous substance in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937”. However, in the Tamil version of the said ground, it mentions After finding that there is variation in the English and Tamil versions of the relevant paragraph, namely, paragraph 4 and variation goes to the root of the matter, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Dharna v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1184 : 1990 Crl. J 1187: 1990 1 SCC 606 and the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No.6 of 2000 dated 27.7.2000, this Court quashed the detention order on the said ground alone. 8. Though the learned Government Advocate submitted that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand, on going through the description made in ground 4 in the said case as well as in our case and taking note of the offence under adverse cases, we are of the view that variation exists in the English and Tamil versions, which prejudice to the detenu in making effective representation. Following the above referred decision, we accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Following the above referred decision, we accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody, unless he is required in some other case or cause.