Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein and he has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.871/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 02.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P5 MKB Nagar Police Station Crime No.1895/2012 341 & 302 IPC 2. P6 Kondungaiyur Police Station Crime No.1478/2013 341, 324 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, P5 MKB Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1164/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC. 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 in paragraph 4 of the detention order with regard to the place of the Court where bail was granted to the detenu in Crime No.1025/2011 vide Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011, 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 detention order would reveal that in paragraph 4 of the English version, the detaining authority has stated that bail was granted to the detenu in Crime No.1025/2011 vide Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, whereas, in the Tamil version, the place of the Court is mentioned as Thiruvallur. For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order, both in English version as also in the vernacular version is extracted hereunder: "4. I am aware that Thiru.Chandrasekar @ Sekar is in remand in P5 MKB Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1164/2013 and has moved a bail application for P5 MKB Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1164/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10736/2013 and same is pending. It is pertinent to note that in a case registered at P4 Basin Bridge Police Station Cr.No.1025/2011 under Sections 341, 392 r/2 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions at Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011. It is pertinent to note that in a case registered at P4 Basin Bridge Police Station Cr.No.1025/2011 under Sections 341, 392 r/2 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions at Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in P5 MKB Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1164/2013 since in similar cases, bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. ..." (TAMIL) 6. On a verification of the English and Tamil version of paragraph 4 of the detention order, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated that bail was granted to the detenu in Crime No.1025/2011 vide Crl.M.P.No.12888/2011 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai. But, in the Tamil version, it is stated that bail in the said Crime Number was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur. 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, Chandrasekar @ Sekar made in BDFGISSV No.871/2013 dated 02.09.2013, 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.