A. SINGATHEVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT., FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been detained on 29.06.98 by the second respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 after identifying the detenu as a Goonda. The detenu had come to the adverse notice of the authorities in one adverse case. The ground case is registered in Crime No. 1291 of 98 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. It is needless to state the facts in detail, since the writ of Habeas Corpus will have to be allowed on the ground of non-furnishing of true and correct translated copy of the grounds of detention in Tamil.

(2.) Similar and identical question came before us in H.C.P. No. 1120 of 98 and H.C.P. No. 1335 of 98. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor were elaborately discussed. In the above H.C.P.'s the judgments of the Division Bench in H.C.P. No. 1184 of 97, H.C.P. No. 6 of 1998 and H.C.P. No. 899 of 97 which were rendered on identical points were considered by us and followed.

(3.) In this case, in the English version it is stated that any representation that is made by the detenu will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration of the case under Sec. 10 of Act 14 of 1982. But, in the Tamil version, it is not properly translated. The English version that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board is not mentioned in the Tamil version of the detention order. On the other hand, it is only stated that the case of the detenu will be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration under Sec. 10 of the Act 14 of 1982. It is held by us in the earlier decision that the Government after passing detention order has to perform twin obligations. The detenu must be informed that his representation will be duly considered by the Government and that the representation will also be placed before the Advisory Board. Placing the case of the detenu as per Sec. 10 of the Act before the Advisory Board alone is not sufficient for holding that the detenu was informed that his representation will also be placed before the Advisory Board. It is thus seen that the Tamil version of the detention order should contain two facts. Firstly, it must be mentioned that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board. Secondly, it has to be stated that the case of the detenu as per Sec. 10 of the Act will be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration. Hence, we held that the omission to state in the Tamil version of the order that the representation made by the detenu will also be placed before the Advisory Board is fatal. The detenu was not given any assurance in the language known to him that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore, it has to be held that in the instant case, the detenu was not informed that his representation will be placed before the Advisory Board. Hence, we hold that the order of detention is vitiated. In view of our decisions already rendered in similar cases, we hold that the order of detention passed in this case also is fatal and is vitiated and on this ground alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.