The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 3rd June, 1999, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 15th June, 1999.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu has taken a large number of grounds but since in our view this petition deserves to succeed on ground 8-C, we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the writ petition.

Ground 8-C, in short, is that the petitioner-detenu is only well conversant with Hindi language and the Hindi translation of some vital documents furnished to him is not a faithful and true translation of the originals, which are in English and consequently his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired.

Ground 8-C has been replied to in paragraph 17 of the return of the detaining authority and in the said paragraph the detaining authority has furnished a two-fold reply to the said ground, namely (a) the Hindi translations are faithful translations of the originals: and (b) even assuming that there are some mistakes they are of a minor nature and they did not impinge upon the petitioner-detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in paragraph 17 of the return of the detaining authority.

4. To bring home his submission Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to the original in-camera statement of witness B (recorded in English) which is ground 4(b)(ii) of the grounds of detention. He pointed out that in it the prejudicial act attributed to the petitioner-detenu is said to have been committed on 2nd January, 1999 at 5.00 p.m., but in the Hindi translation it has been mentioned that the said prejudicial act was committed in the second week of January and the year is not mentioned. He also urged that in the Hindi translation the time of the incident instead of 5.00 p.m. is mentioned as 7.00 p.m.

Mr. Tripathi urged that since the year is not mentioned in the Hindi translation of the in-camera statement of witness B the petitioner-detenu would have been at a complete loss to understand as to which prejudicial act the detaining authority was referring to.

5. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the absence of the year and the variation in time in the Hindi translation of in-camera statement of witness B are minor mistakes and did not affect the petitioner-detenu's right to make an effective representation.

6. We have reflected over the rival submissions. In our view absence of year is certainly not a minor mistake or omission. We feel that as consequence of it the detenu could have been wholly confused and at a loss to understand as to which prejudicial act of his the detaining authority was referring to. For the same reason, in our opinion, the variation in time is also material.

7. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to point out that in the obligation of the detaining and sponsoring authorities to furnish to the detenu translated copies of vital documents in a language intelligible to the detenu is implicit the obligation that the said translation be true and faithful. As seen above, in the instant case, the said authorities have violated this obligation of theirs.

8. For the said reasons, we find merit