Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein. He 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.1553/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 07.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- SI.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M.6 Manali Police Station Crime No.1543/2013 380 IPC 2. M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Crime No.1683/2013 392 IPC 3. M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Crime No.1955/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, M.8 Sathangadu Police Station in Crime No.1969/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 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 in paragraph 4 of the detention 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 scrutiny of paragraph 4 of the detention order would reveal that there are some defects in translation. In the English version, it is stated thus: “4. ... Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Cr.No.1969/2013, and there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Cr.No.1955/2013 and M.6 Manali Police Station Cr.No.1543/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. ...” The Tamil version reads thus: "TAMIL” 6. On a comparison of the above, in the Tamil version, it is stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out in Crime Nos.1955 and 1543 of 2013. Whereas, in the English version, though the detaining authority has inferred that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said crime numbers, there is no mention that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out. Obviously, the word 'relatives' is omitted to be translated. Whereas, in the English version, though the detaining authority has inferred that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said crime numbers, there is no mention that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out. Obviously, the word 'relatives' is omitted to be translated. 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. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Siva @ Sivasankaran made in No.1553/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 07.11.2013 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.