R VASANTHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenue by name Ravichandran @ Ravi @ Tailor Ravi, who has been detained by the order of detention passed by the first respondent branding him as an immoral traffic offender, in exercise of the powers conferred under 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THERE is one more aspect to be considered viz., that detaining authority not only failed to furnish the true and correct Tamil translated version of grounds of detention to the detenue, but also inspite of representation dated 28.12.2007 from the detenue seeking for such copy, the copies were not furnished to the detenu immediately after the request. The representation was rejected only on 09.01.2009 and even in the order of rejection, it is mentioned that the case registered in Crime No.2 of 2006 has been relied upon by the detaining authority to form its subjective satisfaction to pass the order of detention in question. However, on realising the mistake committed earlier, true translated version of the order of detention in Tamil was furnished to the detenu on 20.02.2008. It must be borne in mind, that the detenue is entitled to place the representation as well the order of rejection passed on such representation before the Advisory Board for its consideration. The Advisory Board meeting was held on 24.01.2008. From the fact there is no dispute that the request of the detenu for supply of true version of translated copies of grounds of detention as early as on 28.12.2007 was rejected by the Government on 09.01.2008. However, the copy of the same was not furnished before the Advisory Board at the time of its meeting which was held on 24.01.2008 and furnishing of such copy after the Advisory Board meeting cannot be considered to be a proper compliance giving opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board. THEREfore, the detenue had been denied his valuable right to make his effective representation before the Advisory Board as to his earlier representation and the consequential order of rejection of the representation.