JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.142/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 06.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No Police Station and Crime No Sections of Law 1. PEW, Chengalpattu Crime No.188/2013 4(1)(aaa) 4(1)(h) 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w. 7, 13, 14 of RS Rules 2000 r/w. 420, 468, 471, 473 and 475 IPC 2. PEW, Thiruvannamalai Crime No.287/2013 4(1)(aaa) 4(1)(g) 4(1)(h) 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act r/w. 7 of TNP Act and 6 and 7 of RS Rules 2000 & 420, 468 and 471 IPC 3. PEW, Chengalpattu Crime No.198/2013 4(1)(aaa) 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w. 6 and 11 of RS Rules 2000 Transporting and 420, 468, 473 and 475 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.09.2013 by PEW, Chengalpattu in Crime No.199/2013 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w. 6 & 7 of RS Rules, 2000 and 420, 468, 471 and 475 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 09.09.2013 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 09.09.2013 annexed in Page No.213 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 215 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused produced on 09.09.2013 at 8.00 pm. Grounds of arrest & Legal aid explained. No complaints against police. Remanded till 23.09.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 213 and 215 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Grounds of arrest & Legal aid explained. No complaints against police. Remanded till 23.09.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 213 and 215 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 explained.' 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, Madhavan, S/o. Adhinamilagi made in BDFGISSV No.142/2013 dated 06.11.2013, 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.