JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 Memo No.738/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 20.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Crime No.419 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Crime No.509 of 2013 Sections 457 and 580 IPC 3. K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Crime No.594 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 4. K-2, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Crime No.636 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station in Crime No.836 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 392 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 remand order dated 07.08.2013 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 comparison of English version of remand order dated 07.08.2013 annexed at Page No.183 of the booklet with the Tamil translation would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following: "Accused produced. No complaints. Case explained. Remanded till 21.08.13.” the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the booklet at Page No.184, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the sentences “Accused produced. No complaints. Case explained. Remanded till 21.08.13.” are not found translated in vernacular language as to imply exact meaning. Apart from this, translation of sentences are also seemingly inaccurate in nature. No complaints. Case explained. Remanded till 21.08.13.” are not found translated in vernacular language as to imply exact meaning. Apart from this, translation of sentences are also seemingly inaccurate in nature. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation 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, Naveenraj @ Naveen, S/o.Samson, made in Memo No.738/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 20.08.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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 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.