JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the appellant seeking release of Rathina Raj @ Rathnavel Pandian (hereinafter referred to as the ‘detenu’), who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the ‘Act’) as a “Goonda”. The accusation against him was to the effect that he is habitually committing crime and that he had also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

3. The order of detention was passed in respect of Rathina Raj, which was approved by the State Government. The detention order was challenged by filing a Habeas Corpus petition before the Madras High Court.

4. Before the High Court primarily the following grounds were urged :

(1)There is discrepancy in the case numbers and the detaining authority was not supplied with material documents;

(2)The translated c