P.R. AMRUTHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife of one H.S.Praveen Kumar @ Praveen (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') filed this writ petition for quashing the detention order, dated 13.10.2016, in Ref.No.C.1/916/M/2016 passed by respondent No. 2.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the main ground, as it has turned out, on which the detention order is questioned is that the detenu was not furnished with translated copies of certain documents in the language known to him, by the detaining authority. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that the detenu is a native of Karnataka State and he does not know Telugu and that failure of respondent No. 2 to furnish the translated documents in vernacular language of the alleged detenu caused grave prejudice to his interests.

(3.) At the hearing, while Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.P. Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, wherein it is stated that the order of detention and grounds of detention were supplied to the alleged detenu in three languages viz., Telugu, English and Kannada. He submitted that though it is stated in the detention order that the grounds of detention in Telugu, English and Kannada were furnished to the alleged detenu, but the material based on which respondent No. 2 has passed the detention order was not translated in the language known to the alleged detenu and supplied to him as envisaged under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Smt.Icchu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531; and Powanammal Vs. State of T.N., (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 413 and the judgment of this Court in Renu Kumar Bagalakoti Vs. State of Telangana and others, 2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 966.