Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in No.1210/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V./2013 dated 02.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T7 Tank Factory Police Station, Crime No.151 of 2013 Section 380 of IPC 2. T10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Cr.No.1194/2013 380 IPC 3. T7 Avadi Tank Factory P.S. Crime No.586/2013 454, 380 IPC 4. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Cr.No.1340/2013 341, 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station in Crime No.1346 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detention order passed by the detaining authority dated 02.10.2013 in No.1210/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V./2013 has been furnished to the detenu in English and Tamil versions, the same has not been furnished in the vernacular version of the detenu viz., Hindi language, 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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the entire English version has been read over in Hindi and explained the same to the detenu and therefore, it will not affect the rights of the detenu. 6. A careful scrutiny of the remand order dated 02.10.2013 reveals that the entire order was read over and explained in the vernacular language (hindi language) to the detenu and the signature of the Hindi Teacher, Excel Matriculation School, Thirumullaivayal, also found place in the said order. However, the remand order was not furnished to the detenu in the vernacular language, which would definitely deprive an opportunity to the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned for the redressal of his grievances guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India since constitutional guarantee to the detenus is of paramount consideration. However, the remand order was not furnished to the detenu in the vernacular language, which would definitely deprive an opportunity to the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned for the redressal of his grievances guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India since constitutional guarantee to the detenus is of paramount consideration. Therefore, the detention order passed against the detenu is vitiated in law. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Jeevan S/o. Lakshmanan, made in No.1210/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V./2013 dated 02.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.