“20. In the present case, even the order of preventive detention itself indicates that the detenu was not conversant in writing English, which obviously implies that he was not capable of reading English. It is axiomatic that a person who does not know how to write English, cannot read English and similarly a person who does not know how to read English, cannot write English. The detenu himself had made a request for furnishing copies of the documents in Hindi. At that stage, such request was not rejected on the ground that the detenu knew English, but on the ground that the documents being in standardised form was well within his knowledge. If the authorities knew that the detenu knew English, they must have given that answer even in the very beginning. The specific assertion made by the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition has not been challenged by filing any counter affidavit. Merely because the detenu signed in English in the representation or in other places, it does not mean that he was in a position to read and understand the language to such an extent to enable him to make an effective representation. Even the representation to which our notice has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly indicates that the detenu did not know how to read and write English. On the face of such unassailed materials, a mere contention raised at the hearing stage without any convincing supporting materials, cannot be accepted. In such view of the matter, the order of detention is liable to be quashed as non-furnishing of translated copies of relied documents relied upon by the detaining authority himself has vitiated the order of detention. ”
