The constitutional and statutory right of a detenu to be informed of the grounds of detention in a language he understands is a fundamental right that cannot be violated.

BARMAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner -- an Excise vendor of Cuttack town, paying about Rs. 16000/-as license fee to Government was detained in pursuance of a detention order dated december 15, 1967 passed under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act) purporting to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner preiudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is said that the petitioner was served with a document signed bv the district Magistrate. Cuttack pur-portina to incorporate the order of detention and the grounds all written in English which the petitioner, it is said, did not at all understand. The petitioner's case is that he had only a smattering knowledge of oriva and no knowledge at all of English.

( 2 ) ON December 19, 1967 the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the said detention order and for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus settinr the petitioner at liberty and of a writ of mandamus quashing the impugned order of detention on the various grounds incorporated therein, but mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not communicated the grounds in the language which he understands. The following day on 20-12-1967 the writ petition was admitted by this Court before midday recess. On the same day. when the court sat after midday recess, the learned Government Advocate filed a document purporting to be a detention order under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner's case is that no copy of the document was served on him until then: the document is challenged as not genuine. On December 24. 1967 the petitioner under his signature filed two applications in Oriya from Cuttack Jail requesting to be supplied with the copy of the grounds of his detention in Oriya because as he did not understand English at all he did not know what the grounds were. The petitioner also asked for cppie of various papers which the prosecution relied upon, including the Station Diary entries relied on and referred to in the grounds

( 3 ) ON December 29, 1967 the District Magistrate. Cuttack. passed an order on the said applications to the effect that it is not necessary to furnish the detenu with oriya copies of the grounds of detention as the petitioner was represented by a lawyer in the Court

( 4 ) ON January 18, 1968 the District Magistrate on a reconsideration of his earlier order dated December 29, 1967 on the application of the petitioner for supply of the copy of the grounds of his detention in Oriya, issued orders for supply of Oriya translation of the grounds of detention (including the appendices thereto) to the petitioner and they were served on the petitioner on the same day in Cuttack Jail.

( 5 ) THE writ petition was taken up for hearing on January 22, 1968 and the hearing continued from day to day. On January 29, 1968 after midday recess the learned government Advocate filed a memo to the effect that the detention order dated december 15, 1967 had been revoked and that the petitioner was set at liberty that morning (January 29, 1968) and that thereafter a fresh detention order dated january 28. 1968 been issued against the petitioner; the learned Government advocate further stated that the writ petition had. therefore, become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would consider the position and take instructions from the petitioner accordingly. The case was directed to be put up on February 5, 1968. The said fresh order of detention dated January 28. 1968 purported to have been issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act is also challenged by the petitioner as illegal.

( 6 ) THE main question is. was there any infringement of the constitutional and statutory right of the petitioner by the State Government by reason of their noncom-municatior to him, within five days, of the grounds of his detention in the language which the petitioner understands? Sec. 7 of the Act, which in substance is