Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu himself. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 313/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.06.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-3, Guindy Police Station, Crime No. 1251 of 2012 Section 379 IPC 2. K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No. 701 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 3. K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No. 823 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 4. K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No. 1236 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 5. K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1217 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 31.05.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1224 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil version of remand order dated 17.06.2013 in respect of Crime No. 1224 of 2013, ground case, which is annexed at Page No. 122 of the booklet has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making representation for his redressal 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. From a perusal of the booklet at Page No. 122, it is seen that though the detaining authority has relied on the remand extension order dated 17.06.2013 against Crime No. 1224 of 2013, the said order, though placed in English version, has not been furnished to the detenu in the vernacular version. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Rajendran @ Kulla Rajendran, S/o Philips, made in Memo No. 313/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.06.2013, 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.