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 the order of the second respondent passed in Proceedings No. 1426 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 24.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. N-2 Kasimedu Police Station Cr. No. 64 of 2010 379 IPC 2. N-2 Kasimedu Police Station Cr. No. 65 of 2010 379 IPC 3. N-4 Fishing Harbour Police Station Cr. No. 522 of 2013 341, 324, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC 4. N-4 Fishing Habour Police Station Cr. No. 527 of 2013 341, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 4.10.2013 at 20.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, D.6 Anna Square Police Station, in Crime No. 587 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 427, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 5.10.2013 and produced before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is variation in the translated version of the remand order from that of the English version. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 6. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 6. From a reading of the detention order, it is clear that the remand order dated 5.10.2013 has been relied on by the detaining authority and if so, it is necessary that the detenu should be furnished with the copy of the remand order not only in English version but also in the language known to him so as to enable him to make effective representation for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum. In the English version of the remand order dated 5.10.2013 found at Page No.113 of the booklet, it is stated thus: "Accused produced before me at 5.50 P.M. Grounds of arrest explained to him. Arrest informed to his mother. No complaints of ill treatment by police. Records perused and satisfied. Accused remanded to judicial custody till 18.10.2013." Whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.112, it is stated as under: (TAMIL) Since there is omission in the translated version of the remand order in respect of words in English version "Records perused and satisfied" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu was prevented from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Rajesh S/o Velu, made in No. 1426 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.