Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.942/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.315 of 2009 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC 2. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.590 of 2009 4 of TNPWH Act 3. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.31 of 2011 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC r/w. 34 IPC 4. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.248 of 2013 448, 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC and 4 of Women Harassment Act 5. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No.925 of 2013 147, 148, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 6. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No.932 of 2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 7. K-1 Sembium Police Station, Crime No.853 of 2013 341, 392, 427, 353, 336 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-1 Sembium Police Station in Crime No.1594 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 397, 427, 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the remand order dated 01.09.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the booklet and a comparison of the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013 annexed in Page No.185 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 186 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused produced on 01.09.13 at 5.15 p.m. No complaint against police. Offence and right to engage counsel explained. Records perused and satisfied the reasons for remand. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused produced on 01.09.13 at 5.15 p.m. No complaint against police. Offence and right to engage counsel explained. Records perused and satisfied the reasons for remand. Remanded to judicial custody till 14.09.13.” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in page Nos.185 and 186 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated 'Offence and right to engage counsel explained.' But, in the Tamil version, it is stated 'case details were explained by counsel for the petitioner.' Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Senthilkumar @ Kosu Senthil, made in Memo No.942/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 10.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.