ORDER
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Ramavtar Ramachal Chauhan, has impugned the detention order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).
True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 19th August 1999 are annexed as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, to this writ petition and were served on the detenu on 24th August 1999.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, Although in this writ petition, Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds but since in our view, this writ petition can be allowed on ground 8-B alone, we are neither adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the writ petition nor to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention, warranting issuance of the impugned detention order.
Ground No. 8-B, in short, is that certain documents which have been stipulated therein, including documents at pages 415, 419, 423 and 427, were partly or wholly illegible and hence the detenu’s right to make an effective representation conferred by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, was impaired. Mr. Tripathi pointed out that the documents at pages 415, 419, 423 and 427 are in camara statements of witnesses B, C, D and E respectively and constitute separate grounds on which the impugned detention order is founded.
3. Ground 8-B has been replied to in paragraph 12 of the return of the detaining authority in a two-fold manner, namely, (i) he has denied that the documents mentioned therein were wholly or partly illegible; (ii) the Hindi translation of the said documents furnished to the detenu was clear and readable.
4. Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that since the detenu sought documents in Hindi and was furnished with legible and readable copies of the said documents in Hindi his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired.
5. After perusing, the averments in ground 8-B of the petition, paragraph 12 of the return of the detaining authority and hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner detenu, we are of the judgment that this petition must succeed. A Division Bench of our Court in paras 10 and 11 of the decision reported in 1983 Criminal Law Journal pg. 1246 Moosa Velliat Petitioner v. The Asstt. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and others respondents, has laid down the ratio that not only the translated copies of documents supplied to the detenu should be legible but the originals should also be legible because the detenu then alone would be able to ascertain whether the translation is faithful and correct.
6. In the instant case, on perusing the originals of documents at pages 415, 419, 423 and 427, which are in camera statements of witnesses B, C, D and E respectively, we find them partly illegible. Hence, in our judgment, the petitioner detenu was prevented from ascertaining whether the translated copies of the said documents given to him in Hindi were a faithful translation of the originals and consequently his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired:
We wish to emphasise that in the obligation of the respondents to furnish copies of the original documents, is implicit the obligation to furnish legible copies of such documents.
7. For the said reasons, we allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct the detenu Ramavtar Ramachal Chauhan be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute.
8. Writ petition allowed.