( 1 ). SHRI Madan Gopal @ Madan Bhaiya, the petitioner herein, has assailed the order of his detention by the present criminal writ petition. The detention order was passed against him on 3rd January, 1992 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act ). The impugned order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order was passed by Shri Arun Bhagat, the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and was served upon him in Central Jail, Delhi, on 3rd January, 1992. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 7th January, 1992.

( 2 ). THE facts germane to the present petition are that the petitioner resident of Village Jawali, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad (U. P.) had been an active criminal indulging in acts of violence, murder, attempt to murder, planning tor dacoity, attack on public servant, criminal intimidation, robbery and use of Explosive Substances. He was involved in as many as 14 cases. From these activities it was found that he was restless, desperate and highly dangerous criminal. He bad planned heinous crimes like dacoity and also conspired to kidnap for ransom. He did not hestitate to attack and snatch Government arms from the Government servants engaged in the performance of their lawful duties. Under these circumstances, it was considered that his activities were a menace to the public at large as he had created a sense of terror and insecurity. Though he was a permanent resident of U. P. but he used to commit crimes in Delhi which were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was also found that he was in custody incase F. I. R. No. 79 dated 28th July, 1991 under Sections 364/365/34/368/341/342/386/506/171/120-B, Indian Penal Code P. S. Alipur, Delhi. It was also considered that since he had been granted bail by the High Court, there was every possibility that after being released from the Jail, he will again idulge in the activities which were highly prejudicial to-the maintenance of public order.

( 3 ). FROM the above facts, it is clear that while the petitioner was still in. judicial custody, the impugned detention order was passed undersection 3 (2) of the Act and was served on him. In the grounds of detention he was also made aware that if he so liked, he could make representation to the Administrator of Delhi and/or to the Advisory Board of Delhi High Court against his detention. He was further informed that in case he desired to make representation to the Central Government, be could do so through Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar. The relied upon documents were supplied to him.

( 4 ). IN this petition the petitioner has raised several grounds challenging bis detention. However Mr. Rohit Kochhar during the course of arguments restricted his points on the following grounds namely:

1. There has been a suppression of vital and material facts and documents from the detaining authority which vitiates the detention.

2. That all the relied upon documents mentioned in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu in Hindi translation, which is the only. language the detenu can read, write and understand and that there has been a long and unreasonable delay in consideration of the petitioner s representation dated 15th January, 1992.

( 5 ). TAKING up the ground No. 2 first, Mr. Rohit Kochhar counsel for the petitioner contended that the non supply of Hindi translation of the relied upon documents would vitiate the detention. The petitioner is from U. P. and knows only Hindi. A duly is cast, under Article 22 (5) of the Coustitution of India, on the respondent to ascertain at the time of arrest of the detenu, as to what is his mother tongue. After having ascertained the same the documents in that very language have to be supplied to the detenu. In this case, the relied upon documents particularly the Hindi translation of these docume