Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu 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.1060/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 20.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T12 Poonamalle Police Station Crime No.119/2013 147, 148 and 302 IPC 2. T4 Maduravoyal Police Station Crime No.283/2013 147, 148, 341, 324 & 307 IPC 3. K11 CMBT Police Station Crime No.178/2013 392 IPC 4. K11 CMBT Police Station Crime No.186/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 392 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, T4 Maduravoyal Police Station in Crime No. 1191/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 392, 307 and 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 the date of extension of remand is wrongly mentioned in the Tamil version of the remand extension order, 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 extension order dated 06.09.2013 annexed in Page No.140 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 141 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “Accused produced on Prison Adhalath. Remand extended till 16.09.2013. ” The Tamil version reads thus: (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand extension order dated 06.09.2013, annexed at pages 140 and 141 of the booklet, it is seen that the date of remand extension is wrongly mentioned in the Tamil version as 16.09.2012, instead of 16.09.2013, which would certainly cause confusion to the detenu. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand extension order dated 06.09.2013, annexed at pages 140 and 141 of the booklet, it is seen that the date of remand extension is wrongly mentioned in the Tamil version as 16.09.2012, instead of 16.09.2013, which would certainly cause confusion to the detenu. 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, Madhan @ Madhan Kumar made in BDFGISSV No.1060/2013 dated 20.09.2013, 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.