JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ibohal, learned State Counsel. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act. The order of detention is dated 6.2.2010 while the grounds accompanying the order of detention are dated 10.2.2010. 3. The only contention urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the grounds of detention are absolutely vague and it is not possible for the detenue to make an effective representation against his preventive detention. 4. To better appreciate this contention, we quote the grounds of detention itself. The relevant portions are at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the grounds of detention and they read as follows: 1. That, you could not maintain your family from the source of your meagre income at the prevailing high rate of present essential commodities the State of Manipur. Accordingly, you determined to earn extra money without hectic efforts in order to maintain your family. As such, you decided to extort money from the general public, shop keepers, Government offices located in Imphal area in the name of the banned and outlawed organisation Kangleipak Communist Party ('KCP') Tabungba faction. Keeping this view in mind you prepared a impersonation identity card of 2nd Bn. IRB issued by Manipur Police Department in your name from the Computer shop of Shri Kharibam Bishrat Singh (40 years) s/o Kh. Madhop Singh of Khurai Puthiba Leikai located at Khurai Lamlong Bazar so as you avoided from arrest by the Security forces at the time of extortion of money. After that, you started extortion of money from the general public, shop keepers, Government offices located in Imphal area using the name of the KCP Tabungba faction by holding the impersonation I/D card for your personal benefits. Thus, you carried out the same task till your arrest. 2. That, one day on 28.1.2010 around 5.00 p.m. you along with Shri Kh. Bisharat Singh were arrested by a team of CDO/IE led by SI S. Sanju from Khurai Chingangbam Leirak Machin and recovered one forged I/C card in the name of Ksh. Romen, One CPU, One Monitor, One Printer-cum-Scanner, three Xerox copies of forged driving licence issued by the DTO/Senapati, three merit certificate issued by the Ministry, of Youth Affairs, Government of India from the possession of you all. Romen, One CPU, One Monitor, One Printer-cum-Scanner, three Xerox copies of forged driving licence issued by the DTO/Senapati, three merit certificate issued by the Ministry, of Youth Affairs, Government of India from the possession of you all. After that, you were handed over to the OC/PRT PS with a written report and seized articles. On the strength of the report OC/PRT registered a regular case under FIR No. 23(1)2010 PRT PS under Section 17/20 UA(P) Act. Act and investigated into. During the course of the investigation of the case, you were arrested on 28.1.2010 and remanded into police custody till 6.2.2010. Now, you are in judicial custody. 5. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and in our opinion quite rightly, that the grounds are absolutely vague inasmuch as there is no indication whatsoever about when the Petitioner extorted money from the general public, shop keepers, government officers, etc., Apart from the fact that the period has not been specified even in terms of the year, let alone the month, even the area of operation of the Petitioner has been left absolutely vague. All that is said is that the Petitioner continued extortion in Imphal area. It is quite well known that Imphal is not a small town but is a large area and it is simply not possible for anybody to extort money everywhere in Imphal area either individually or as a member of any organisation, as alleged. 6. In our opinion, the grounds of detention should be specific enough so that a detenue who is under preventive custody can make an effective representation to the authorities and explain why his preventive detention should not continue. In the present case, in the absence of any material particulars, it is not possible for the Petitioner to make any specific representation whatsoever, let alone an effective representation, since he has absolutely no idea of the period referred to nor of the locality or of the area where the Petitioner is alleged to have conducted his unlawful activities. 7. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Smt. Chingtham Ningol Indrani Devi v. The State of Manipur and Ors. [WP(Crl) No. 15/09 decided on 13.11.2009]. In this decision, a Division Bench of this Court referred to Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Anr. 7. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Smt. Chingtham Ningol Indrani Devi v. The State of Manipur and Ors. [WP(Crl) No. 15/09 decided on 13.11.2009]. In this decision, a Division Bench of this Court referred to Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Anr. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 and came to the conclusion, on a more or less similar facts as in the present case, that the grounds of detention were extremely vague and the material particulars were not disclosed to the detenue therein. As such, it was not possible for the detenue to make an effective representation as provided by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 8. The Division Bench also made a reference to yet another and earlier decision of this Court in WP(Crl.) No. 29/2009 decided on 31.10.2009 in the case of detenue Yurembam Rojesh Singh @ Ango. 9. The consistent view of this Court is that if the grounds of detention are vague and are devoid of material particulars, it is not possible for a detenue to make an effective representation and if the detenue is unable to make an effective representation, then there is a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution'. 10. In this particular, case, since the grounds of detention reproduced above do not disclose any material particulars to enable the detenue to make an effective representation, we have no option but to set aside the order of preventive detention of the Petitioner and direct that he should be released forthwith unless he is required to be detained in some other case. 11. It is ordered accordingly.