The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural fairness, proper translation of documents, and the provision of material to the detenus for making effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel representing all the learned counsel on record for the petitioners, and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecuror, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. Since all these Habeas Corpus Petitions arise out of a common offence and the grounds of detention are also akin, they are being disposed of in common.

3. All these petitions have been filed either by the detenus themselves or by their wives or mother. The detenus have been detained by the detaining authority in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Piracy Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), "in short, the Act", read with orders issued by the Government in various Government Orders under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branded as Goondas, for their involvement in the crimes under Sections 379, 380, 341, 336,427,392 and 506 (ii) of IPC.

4. The detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction, based on the adverse cases and also the ground cases of each of the detenus on the said offences, taking into account the possibility of their coming out on bail and indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, and also that the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing them from indulging in such activities and also the material information furnished by the sponsoring authority so also the similar cases, wherein bail was granted to the accused by the court, and detained the detenus under Section 2 (f) of the Act.

5. The detenus have been involved in the above offences and mostly Section 379 of IPC and the said detenus are in the age group of 24 to 36 years and also the number of cases of theft involved are ranging from 2 to 42. Similarly, robbery and chain snatching cases are of the common nature, wherein the recovery of amount would range from rupees hundred to several thousands in some cases and also leading to recovery of gold jewels.

6. The petitioners have commonly raised certain constitutional violations and the mandatory requirements of the rights of the detenus, guaranteed under Articles 22 (1) and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, as to the deprivation of material information to be furnished to them for making effective representation or the arrest information or the non-application of mind and also the subjective satisfaction arrived at without any material on the part of the detaining authority.

7. We have verified all the booklets of the detentions and also the materials furnished to the detenus.

8. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to decide the petitions on their own merits, separately.

9. Detenu himself has questioned the order of detention. He is aged 24 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the material supplied to the detenu at page No.13 of the booklet has been furnished with improper translation and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.

10. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of KasthuribaiGandhi vs The Secretary To Government in H.C.P.(MD)No.1226 of 2013, has held as under:

"18. It was also well founded that furnishing copy of defective translation of the remand order and other material papers is mandatory and failure to consider the original order of remand while disposing the representation would vitiate the detention order and the detention, accordingly, would be unsustainable, in law, which is applicable to the present case."

11. On verification of the booklet, it is seen that page No.13 which pertains to the Warrant of Commitment on a sentence, has not been properly translated and given to the detenu. Hence, this defect would deprive the detenu a reasonable opportunity of making an effectiv