Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.671/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 12.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Crime No.331 of 2013 379 IPC 2. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.1216 of 2013 392 IPC 3. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.1252 of 2013 397 IPC r/w. 395 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No.1259/2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 336, 392 r/w. 397 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 there is variation in translation of the remand order dated 25.07.2013 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 a comparison of the English version of the remand order dated 25.07.2013 annexed in Page No.129 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 130 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "A1 to A4 produced at 2.00 p.m. Grounds of arrest and Legal aid informed. No complaints of ill treatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 07.08.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 129 and 130 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated 'Grounds of arrest and legal aid informed.' But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to 'Grounds of arrest'. The aspect 'legal aid' is not translated in the Tamil version of the remand order. In the English version, it is stated 'Grounds of arrest and legal aid informed.' But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to 'Grounds of arrest'. The aspect 'legal aid' is not translated in the Tamil version of the remand order. 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, Anand @ Ananda Kumar made in BDFGISSV No.671/2013 dated 12.08.2013, 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.