Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. 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 BDFGISSV No.540/2013 dated 29.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-8, Adambakkam Police Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC 2. S-8, Adambakkam Police Sections 341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) IPC 3. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.426 of 2013 Station, Crime No.430 of 2013 Station, Crime No.602 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 26.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station in Crime No.658 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 341, 364, 323 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 there is a variation in translation of the bail order dated 15.05.2013, granted to detenu in respect of Crime No.430 of 2013, 2nd adverse case annexed in the booklet, 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 comparison of English version of bail order dated 15.05.2013, granted to the detenu against Crime No.430 of 2013, annexed at Page No.105 of the booklet with the Tamil translation would reveal some defects in translation in the 1st paragraph of the said order. While the English version informs of the following: "The petitioner who was arrested on 02.04.2013 for the alleged offences u/s.341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.430/2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.” the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. While the English version informs of the following: "The petitioner who was arrested on 02.04.2013 for the alleged offences u/s.341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.430/2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.” the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the booklet at Page No.109, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., bail order of the detenu, wherein the words “arrested on 02.04.2013” are not found translated in vernacular language, due to which exact date of arrest of the detenu in respect of 2nd adverse case is not known in the language known to him. When there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation also stands denied and the same, which amounts to an 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, Nagoor @ Nagoor Meeran, S/o.Yousuf, made in BDFGISSV No.540/2013 dated 29.07.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.