RAMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Arumugam, who is detained as a ''Goonda" as contemplated under the 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), by the impugned detention order dated 07.09.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) At the foremost, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the translated copy of the grounds of detention, has submitted that there is no specific reference to the representation made by the detenu. He also contended that though the same is available in the English version of the grounds of detention ( vide para 6), the material aspect has not been stated or referred to in the Tamil version. According to the learned Counsel, since the detenu is unaware of the English language, in view of the omission of the same in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, he was not in a position to make any representation at all. In the light of the said contention, we have verified para-6 of both English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention. As rightly pointed out, though it is correctly stated in the English version, in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, there is no reference with regard to the representation("KiwaPL"). It is merely stated that the case details would be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration. No doubt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the absence of any representation, the Advisory Board cannot be blamed for not having taken any action to consider his case. As rightly pointed out, because of the said omission or confusion in the Tamil version, the detenu was not in a position to submit his representation. The said contention cannot be rejected. In the light of the variation in the Tamil version, we are satisfied that the detenu was prejudiced in making effective representation to the Advisory Board, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention.