P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Saleemullah @ Saleem @ Baba, son Shafifullah, was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter, ‘the Act of 1986’), under order dated 26.11.2015 of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. Farhana Begum, his wife, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ habeas corpus to produce the detenu before this Court by declaring the detention order dated 26.11.2015 as illegal and unconstitutional. A consequential direction was sought for release of the detenu forthwith from Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, were he is lodged.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, detention of the petitioner’s husband was approved by the Government under G.O. Rt. No. 3207, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 7.12.2015. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1986 and after consideration of the report submitted by the Board on 21.1.2016, the Government confirmed the detention of the petitioner’s husband for a period of 12 months under G.O. Rt. No.450, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 23.2.2016.

3. The main ground on which the detention of the petitioner’s husband is challenged is that all the materials relied upon by the detaining authority were not made available to the detenu, who is uneducated and has acquaintance only with Urdu language. Mohd. Shafifullah, the father of the detenu, filed a sworn affidavit before us stating that his son is an uneducated person who could only communicate in Urdu but could not read or write any language. He further stated that but for affixing his signature; the detenu was incapable of reading or writing in Urdu or English.

4. Sri. T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that as the detenu was neither provided with translations of all the material documents relied upon nor was he explained the contents thereof, he was denied the constitutional right of effectively making a representation against his detention and that this failure on the part of the State would vitiate the entire proceedings.

5. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit and insofar as this crucial aspect is concerned, he stated that the detention order and the grounds of detention, with Urdu translations thereof, along with material documents were furnished to the detenu on 3.12.2015 in the presence of the Jailor. He further stated that the detenu acknowledged that he was read over the contents of the detention order and the grounds of detention in Urdu and that he thoroughly understood the same. Receipt dated 3.12.2015 signed by the detenu is placed on record. This receipt is in English language and reads as under:

“This is to confirm that I, Md. Saleemullah @ Redeem @ Baba, S/o Shafiullah, aged 32 Yrs, Occ: Cloth Business, R/o H.No.8-1-403/66/A, Mini Ghulshan Colony, Hakimpet Tolichowki, Hyderabad, have received (61) pages of the P.D. Act order, order of Detention and order of Grounds, Severed (sic) to me in Chanchalguda Central Prison before the Jailor by the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. I can well understand Urdu language. The Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, translated the order of Detention and Order of Grounds in Urdu language and has explained the contents of the order of detention and order of grounds to me in said language. I have thoroughly understood the terms and conditions specified in the documents. As such, I hereunder sign for completion of due procedure.

Date: 3.12.2015

Sd/-

(Mohd. Saleemullah)”

6. The afore-stated Receipt demonstrates that the detenu received a set of documents numbering 61 pages. It further demonstrates that the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, translated the ‘order of dete