Judgment :- V. Periyakaruppiah, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu T.Ganesan, S/o.Thangavel, seeking for quashment of the detention order dated 15.04.2008 branding the detenu as a “Black Marketeer” under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The petitioner had raised various grounds in the writ petition which are as follows:- .(i) There is no compelling necessity to pass the order of detention against the detenu; .(ii) The detaining authority had exceeded his jurisdiction and had passed the order of detention without any power. (iii) The Tamil translation supplied to the detenu is misleading and contrary to the original English version and when the detenu had demanded for the correct translation, the same was not supplied to him which caused prejudice to him as he was prevented from making an effective representation; .(iv) Some documents like the bail petition, etc. were in the language not known to the detenu and even after demand the authorities have failed to supply the same; .(v) The detaining authority had relied on the previous detention order passed against the detenu on 15.02.2007, but copies of those documents were not served on the detenu and, .(vi) The representation made on behalf of the detenu dated 22.04.2008 had not been considered by the authorities. 2. The 2nd respondent had filed a counter affidavit retracting all the allegations made in the affidavit. He would state that the detenu is in the habit of transporting and hoarding rice meant for Public Distribution System and selling the same in Black Market for pecuniary gain; that it is within his jurisdiction that he has passed the detention order; that there is no variation or misleading in the translation; that the previous detention order is only a referred document and not relied upon document and however, the same has been provided to the detenu at page Nos: 42 to 45 in the booklet and that the representation of the detenu has been considered expeditiously and that there was no delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his arguments that though the petitioner has raised many grounds in the writ petition, he would like to highlight only the following: The Tamil translation of the grounds of detention was misleading and was contrary to the English version. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his arguments that though the petitioner has raised many grounds in the writ petition, he would like to highlight only the following: The Tamil translation of the grounds of detention was misleading and was contrary to the English version. At paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention it is stated that, " ......... It is further informed that he has a right to make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Any representation that is made by him to the Government will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board along with his case details for consideration Under Section 10 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. " This portion has been translated in Tamil in a different manner which would not give the correct meaning. The Tamil translation of the aforesaid portion is as follows: Learned counsel would submit in his argument that in a similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in a decision reported in 1999 (2) C.T.C. 175 [Devarajan vs. State, etc. and another], had come to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the Government to furnish the correct and true translated version of the detention order to the detenu would vitiate the order of detention. He had also drawn our attention to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported 2000 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 34 [Mahamani vs. The Union of India, etc. and others], in which it has been held that the Tamil term "tHf;F" will not include within its meaning the term "representation" and it would only mean "the case". According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Tamil translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu exactly contains the very same defect and therefore, on the basis of the decisions rendered in the above said judgments, the detention order passed against the detenu has to be quashed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Tamil translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu exactly contains the very same defect and therefore, on the basis of the decisions rendered in the above said judgments, the detention order passed against the detenu has to be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the translation of the grounds of detention was properly done and the Tamil version is exactly the same as that of the English version and that the consolidated reading of the portion of the passage referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner would mean the same thing mentioned in the English order of detention and, therefore, there is no variation or a misleading statement which would attract the proposition laid down in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tamil translation of the grounds of detention from English to Tamil was not done properly. At paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention it is stated as follows: " ......... It is further informed that he has a right to make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Any representation that is made by him to the Government will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board along with his case details for consideration under Section 10 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. " The translation version of the above portion in Tamil would read thus, According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in English version, it is stated that the representation made to the Advisory Board will be considered by the Government and it will be placed before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, along with the case details for the purpose of deciding the representation. Whereas, the Tamil translation said to have been done so would mean that the representation will be considered by the Government and the case documents will be placed before the Advisory Board. Whereas, the Tamil translation said to have been done so would mean that the representation will be considered by the Government and the case documents will be placed before the Advisory Board. In the decision reported in 1999 (2) C.T.C. 175 [Devarajan vs. State, etc. and another], cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court held that, "12. When once we hold that the State is under obligation to inform the detenu that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board, the further question that would arise is, whether the non-furnishing of the correct Tamil version of the detention order would be fatal. 13. The right of the detenu to make representation to the authorities is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The representation sent by the detenu to the State Government will have to be placed before the Advisory Board apart from the grounds relied on by the Government for detaining the detenu. Therefore, when the detenu was not informed that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board, it would certainly amount to denial of his right. The contention of the respondent is that the fact that the representation made by the detenu to the Government will be placed before the Advisory Board is not mentioned in the Tamil version will not affect the order. We are unable to accept the above contention of the respondent. When it is clearly stated in the English version that the representation made by the detenu will be considered by the Government and that it will be placed before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be informed about the said fact in the language known to him. As the detenu was not informed that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board in the language known to him, it cannot be said that the order of detention is not vitiated." 6. Similarly, paragraphs 29 and 40 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2000 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 34, cited supra, would run as follows: "29. It is well settled that in interpreting or constructing the words in the document, importance should be attached tot he plain meaning of the particular word, where the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot add some other word to give the required meaning. It is well settled that in interpreting or constructing the words in the document, importance should be attached tot he plain meaning of the particular word, where the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot add some other word to give the required meaning. When it is clearly stated in the English version that the representation will be considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board, the Tamil version of the grounds of detention should also contain the same meaning. In the English version, as assurance has been given that the representation sent by the detenu, will be considered by the Government and will be placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore, such assurance has to be given to the detenu in the language known and understood by him. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the word "tHf;F" occurring in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention would not include "representation". As placing the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board and placing the representation if any received by the Government are independent of each other, the contention of the State that the word "tHf;F" (case) include representation cannot be accepted. ............ ............ 40. In the result, the reference is answered as follows:- .(1) Placing the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board and placing the representation are two separate obligations and that they are independent of each other. .(2) It is obligatory on the part of the State to place the representation along with its case while making reference to the Advisory Board. .(3) The word "tHf;F" (Case) does not include representation (KiwaP ) .(4) The question whether or not the detenu was prejudiced by omission of the word in the Tamil version is left open to be decided by the respective Division Benches." 7. The dictum laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision is that the word "tHf;F" will not mean and include the "representation". Therefore, the Tamil translation which mentioned only "tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz;fs;" cannot be taken to mean "the case details". The actual meaning of the words "the case details" would be "tHf;F tptu;fs;". Similarly, the exact translation of the words "tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz;fs;" is "case documents". Therefore, the Tamil translation which mentioned only "tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz;fs;" cannot be taken to mean "the case details". The actual meaning of the words "the case details" would be "tHf;F tptu;fs;". Similarly, the exact translation of the words "tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz;fs;" is "case documents". The meaning in the English version of the grounds of detention would go to show that the representation submitted by the detenu will be considered by the Government and it will be placed before the Advisory Board along with the case details for consideration under Section 10 of the Act, whereas the Tamil version corresponding to the aforesaid passage would mean that, "the case documents will be placed by the Government before the Advisory Board after the representation had been submitted before it." Thus it is clear that the translated grounds of detention in Tamil gives a different meaning from the English version. Therefore, the Full Bench decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The term "tHf;F Mtz;fs; " as mentioned in the Tamil translation would not include "representation". Therefore, the aforesaid passage in the grounds of detention in the English version was not translated properly into Tamil so as to be understood by the detenu for putting forth an effective representation. Under these circumstances, according to the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of our High Court, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. In the result, the Habeas corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any case.