ANSAR ALI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present matter arises on a reference to this Bench on account of the disagreement on the part of the Division Bench consisting of S.Jagadeesan and P. Thangavel, JJ., (hereinafter referred to as the "referring-Bench"), before whom H.C.P. No.798 of 2001 was pending, with the Division Bench judgment in H.C.P. No.1467 of 2000 (In re S. Ramalingam), decided on 19-2-2001, by K. Narayana Kurup and P. Thangavel, JJ.

(2.) THE referring-Bench found it not possible to agree with the aforementioned Division Bench judgment in Ramalingam case, cited supra, wherein the failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the Tamil translation of the Customs Clearance Card, in spite of the representation preferred by the detenu requesting to supply the translation of the said card, was held fatal to the detention. Before the referring- Bench, a contention was raised that the petitioner was not furnished with the Tamil translation of the Air-ticket and the Baggage Check Clearance Card. THE contention raised was that though the Tamil translation of the documents at page Nos.49, 50, 56, 57 and 61 of the booklet were sought for by the detenu, on the ground that he did not know any other language than Tamil, and since all the documents were in English, the Tamil translation thereof should have been made available and the failure on the part of the detaining authority to make such Tamil translation of the documents available was fatal to the further detention because it bristled against his right under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the aforementioned judgment in S. Ramalingam case, cited supra. THE referring-Bench finding itself unable to agree with that judgment and hence to follow the same has caused this reference to be made.

(3.) THE learned counsel to begin with invited our attention to the grounds stated in the grounds of detention order and firstly invited our attention to paragraph 4, which is as under: "While arriving at the subjective satisfaction to detain you under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the State Government have taken into consideration all the facts and materials referred to and relied upon in these grounds mentioned above and also the statements, mahazars, etc. accompanying thereto." THE learned counsel then invites our attention to the counter filed by the first respondent and more particularly paragraph 5 thereof. From this, the learned counel contends that all the documents which have been supplied by way of paper-book were, therefore, "relied upon" documents and therefore, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply the translations of these "relied upon" documents particularly when the translations were particularly sought for by the detenu.