ORDER : K.T. Sankaran, J. The Registry noticed a defect that Exts. P5 to P7 produced along with the Writ Petition (Cri.) are not legible. 2. The learned counsel replied to the objection that the copies of First Information Report and Final Report given to the detenu along with the grounds of detention are not at all readable and legible and a specific ground has been taken in the Writ Petition as ground No. V. Ground No. V in the Writ Petition reads as follows: “v. It is humbly submitted that the copies of the FIR and the final reports given to the detenu as grounds of detention are not at all legible and readable. The serving of non-legible copies of documents relied on by the detaining authority tantamount to non-serving of the copy of the documents. So in this case the detenu had not been served with the documents relied on by the detaining authority.” 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts. P5 to a P7 are the documents supplied to the detenu and therefore/those documents are to be treated as originals. 4. The Registry relied on Rule 50 of the Kerala High Court Rules which reads as follows: “50. Return of papers in improper language etc.- All papers which are couched in improper language or are illegible or are unnecessarily prolix shall be returned for rectification. Explanation.- Papers written in pencil shall be deemed to be illegible for the purpose of this rule, unless they be the originals received by the party.” 5. When an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Laws is challenged on the ground that the documents supplied to the detenu are not legible and readable, and therefore, there is no communication of the grounds of detention within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that the person challenging the order’ of detention should produce readable copies. The ground for challenging the order of detention itself being non supply of readable copies, it is puerile to contend that the detenu or the writ petitioner should procure a readable copy for production before the High Court. What is meant by the expression “returned for rectification” occurring in Rule 50 is that wherever possible, the defect should be rectified. The ground for challenging the order of detention itself being non supply of readable copies, it is puerile to contend that the detenu or the writ petitioner should procure a readable copy for production before the High Court. What is meant by the expression “returned for rectification” occurring in Rule 50 is that wherever possible, the defect should be rectified. For example; a certified copy of a judgment supplied to the petitioner/appellant is not readable and it is produced before the High Court. He should either supply a readable copy or get a readable and legible certified copy from the Court which issued it and produce it. To our mind, Rule 50 cannot be interpreted to mean that whatever may be the reason for production of illegible copies, the petitioner is bound to rectify that mistake. It is beyond the reach of the petitioner in this case to get a legible copy. Even if a legible copy is supplied to the petitioner, that would not be an answer to the contention put forward in the Writ Petition. For the purpose of dealing with the contention raised in ground No. V, this Court need not read and understand Exts. P5, P6 and P7. This Court need only consider whether Exts. P5, P6 and P7 were relied upon by the detaining authority, whether Exts. P5, P6 and P7 are the copies supplied to the detenu and whether these documents are illegible. 6. Accordingly, the view taken by the Registry that the petitioner should produce legible copies of Exts. P5 to P7 is found to be unsustainable. Number the Writ Petition.