High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 03 MAD CK 0039

Govindammal vs The District Collector and District Magistrate and The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department

Madras High Court · Decided on 27 March 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1355 of 2005

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 302 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Govindhammal, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31.10.2005, detaining her

husband Annadurai, as "" Bootlegger"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the detenu is not conversant with English language and he

knows only Tamil, in the Tamil version of grounds of detention he was asked to send his representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board,

Koovam House, Omandhurar Government Estate, Swami Sivanandha Salai, Chennai 600 002, there is no specific mention how the same has to

be sent / routed through.

4.

In the light of the above said contention, we verified the grounds of detention both English and Tamil version. Though in the English version the

Detaining authority as specifically stated that the detenu is free to make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Koovam House,

Omandhurar Government Estate, Swami Sivanandha Salai, Chennai 600 002 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, in the Tamil

version of the grounds of detention it has not been clearly stated, viz., how his representation is to be sent to the Chairman Koovam House,

Omandhurar Government Estate, Swami Sivanandha Salai, Chennai 600 002. In view of the fact that the detenu is unaware of English language,

we hold that defect in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention has caused prejudice in making effective representation, questioning the order

of detention. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed; accordingly, quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.