JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the friend of the detenu Sohel Yunus Khopatkar @ Popat has impugned the order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by the first respondent, Mr. M.N. Singh, 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. L.V. of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).

The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which were also dated 20th March, 2001 was served on the detenu on 27th March, 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexure 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this petition.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the detention order was approved by the State Government on 28th March, 2001, as is manifest from paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by Mr. Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and this fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention that copy of the grounds of detention was furnished to the detenu in Hindi language on 30-3-2001 and this is apparent from the endorsement of the detenu bearing the said date, contained in xerox copy of the grounds of detention, (in Hindi) which has been filed alongwith the petition.

3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu which prompted the first respondent to pass the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B'). Their perusal would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R., namely, C.R. No. 164/2000 under sections 307, 384, 387, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with 37(a) of the Bombay Police Act, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 7-9-2000 lodged by Mohammed Yunus Mohamed Nafiz Qureshi at Sir J.J. Marg Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses namely, 'A' and 'B', which were recorded on 30-11-2000 and 2-12-2000 respectively.

Since in our judgment a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu, contained in the said C.R. and in-camera statements, is not necessary for the adjudication of the solitary ground pressed by the learned Counsel for the petition, namely, that pleaded as ground 6(a) in the petition, we are not adverting to them.

4. Ground 6(a), in substance, is that since the Hindi translation of the detention order and the grounds of detention, supplied to the detenu, is not true and faithful translation of the original detention order and the grounds of detention, which are in English, the detenus fundamental right to make an effective and purposeful representation, guaranteed to him by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, was impaired. In ground 6(a) several instances of incorrect translation have been mentioned, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted himself only to four of them.

5. We now propose dealing with them. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner first referred to paragraph 7 of the original grounds of detention, in English and the Hindi translation thereof. He urged that in paragraph 7 of the original grounds of detention, the detenu has been informed that pending approval of the detention order, under section 3(3), by the State Government, he had a right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police, but in the Hindi translation, what has been communicated to him is that he could make a representation against the order issued by the State Government meaning thereby that he had a right to make a representation against the Police Commissioner.

Mr. Tripathi urged that on account of this infirmity in the translation, the detenu would have been confused, in exercising his fundamental right of making an effective and purposeful representation.

6. Ms. Kamat, learned