K KALIYA PERUMAL Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. KALIYA Perumal, father of detenu-Panju @ Massthan @ Saravanan, challenges the detention order dated 31-01-2005 detaining the detenu as "goonda" under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the following materials:

(3.) COMING to the first contention, Mr. T. K. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing our attention to para 3 of the grounds of detention both English and Tamil version, would submit that the place of occurrence though correctly stated in the Tamil version, there is omission of the same in the English version supplied to the detenu. Since, according to him, the scene of occurrence varies, the detenu had confusion in making representation. A perusal of para 3 of Grounds in Tamil version shows that the complainant-Sowgath Ali, son of Abdul Majith, aged about 40 is residing at No. 35, V. V. Koil Street, Otteri, Chennai-12. The next sentence shows that he is running a tiffin stall in the name of Thamim Ansari at No. 54, Strahans Road, Otteri, Chennai-12. In the English version of the grounds of detention, it is not in dispute that the residential address of the complainant Sowgath Ali has been properly stated. The date and time i. e. , "at about 11 Hours on 23-1-2005" is also properly stated. However, instead of referring to Shop No. 54, Strahans Road, Otteri, in the English version, it merely refers to as "tiffin shop". The comparison of both English and Tamil versions would show that though a reference has been made to a tiffin shop and Door No. 54 at Strahans Road, Otteri has been stated in the Tamil version, the said Door Number and street have not been mentioned in the English version. Learned Government Advocate by drawing our attention to the documents supplied in the form of paper book, would contend that except failure to state No. 54, Strahans Road in the English version of the grounds of detention, in the Tamil version as well as in all other documents supplied to the detenu, the scene of occurrence has been correctly stated; hence, according to him, the detenu being unaware of the English language and is conversant with Tamil, this negligible omission in the English version would not affect the right of the detenu to make a representation. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Government Advocate for the following reasons.