JUDGMENT :- V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu himself, challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.C2/6890/2013, dated 3.3.2013, seeking to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely Ganapathy @ Balaganapathy, son of Murugesa Gounder, aged about 40 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases relating to smuggling of PDS rice: Sl.No. Crime No. Offence(s) on the file of under Section Order 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1. Cuddalore CS 1982 read CID Cr.No.284 with of 2011 Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act. Thiruvannamalai Unit CS CID 2 Cr.No.310 of -do 2012 Salem CS CID 3 Cr.No.395 of -do 2012 4 Cuddalore CS CID Cr.No.315 of 2012 -do- and Sections 353 and 307 IPC Order 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Cuddalore CS Order, 1982 read 5. CID Cr.No.04 of with 2013 Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act. He is also involved in respect of the ground case in Crime No.42 of 2013 on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Cuddalore Unit, registered under Order 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, 1955 and also under Sections 353 and 307 IPC, and the ground case also relates to the smuggling of PDS rice. Hence, the impugned detention order has been passed against the detenu branding him as "Black Marketeer" under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980). 3. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner other than the grounds raised is that the detaining authority with total non-application of mind, passed the impugned detention order by observing that if the detenu wishes to make any written representation to the detaining authority, he should address it to the District Magistrate and Collector, Cuddalore District, whereas, the impugned detention order has been passed only by the second respondent-District Collector and Magistrate, Villupuram (detaining authority), and as such, there is a glaring error, resulting in confusion in the mind of the detenu in sending effective representation to the appropriate authority, thereby vitiating the impugned detention order. 4. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that though in the English version of the ground version, the detaining authority has mentioned the place of the authority as "District Magistrate and Collector, Cuddalore District", but in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has correctly stated the place of the authority as "District Collector and Magistrate, Villupuram", and therefore, the detenu has every opportunity to understand and send an effective representation to the appropriate authority, and hence, the impugned detention order cannot be found fault with. 5. We have also heard the learned SCGSC appearing for the third respondent on the above aspect. 6. It is seen that the detenu has been branded as a Black Marketeer and detained by the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, as he came to adverse notice in five cases, besides the ground case. In paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that, "....If Thiru.Ganapathy @ Balaganapathy, S/o Murugesa Gounder wishes to make any written representation to the detaining authority, he should address it to "The District Magistrate and Collector, Cuddalore District" and forward it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore, in which he is confined as expeditiously as possible. ..." 7. From the above observations of the detaining authority, it is seen that he has specifically stated that the representation has to be addressed to the District Magistrate and Collector, Cuddalore District, but the place of the detaining authority in this case is Villupuram and not Cuddalore. 8. A right of the detenu making an effective representation is a matter to be understood in a manner known to the detenu in clear unambiguous terms, be it in English or Tamil or appropriate language. 8. A right of the detenu making an effective representation is a matter to be understood in a manner known to the detenu in clear unambiguous terms, be it in English or Tamil or appropriate language. In this case, though it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has correctly stated that the representation has to be addressed to the District Magistrate and Collector, Villupuram, but not as in English version as District Magistrate and Collector, Cuddalore, yet, it is clear that the detaining authority, without looking into the actual factual aspects of the matter, has clamped the order of detention on the petitioner/detenu, without applying his mind, thereby a confusion/ambiguity will prevail in the mind of the detenu with regard to which authority he has to send his representation. This erratic observation of the detaining authority, will prejudice the detenu from making an effective representation so as to redress his grievances in the manner known to law, thereby vitiating the impugned detention order, which cannot be sustained. 9. Hence, the impugned detention order is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.