SAROJA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu, has filed this petition challenging the order of the detention of her husband Pandiyan on the ground that he is a 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It is unnecessary to elaborate the facts with regard to the ground case or adverse case in view of the only point urged by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that there is difference between the English version of the order of detention and the Tamil version of the order of detention and that itself vitiates the order of detention. The relevant portion of the order of detention, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, is the following:

(2.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon an unreported Order of this Court in H.C.P. No. 679 of 1998 dated 16.10.1998 Chandra v. State wherein in an identical facts learned Judges have held as follows:

(3.) YET another unreported order of this Court relied upon by learned Additional Public Prosecutor is H.C.P. No. 1206 of 1997, dated 30.4.1998 wherein also the Division Bench consisting of C. Shivappa, J and A. Ramamurthi, J. have held that it is sufficient if the detenu had been informed that the matter will be referred to the Advisory Board in accordance with Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: