Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 3rd September 2016, whereby, the detenu has been detained and till date, he is under detention.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the detenu is resident of the State of Karnataka. His known languages are Kannada and Urdu, therefore, the respondents supplied detention order and grounds of detention in Urdu i.e. the known language of the detenu. However, rest of the relied upon documents are supplied in Telugu and English, therefore, the detenu failed to make effective representation to the authorities concerned. Thus, the detention order deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded that the known languages of the detenu are Kannada and Urdu, however, the relied upon documents are not supplied in the said languages, but are supplied in Telugu and English.

4. Similar issue came before this Court in W.P.No.30001 of 2016 and order dated 15.02.2017, the detention order therein was quashed. Paras 8 and 9 of the said order read as under:

“8. In case of Powanmmal v. State of T.N. and another