The right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order must not be impaired, and failure to provide translated documents in a language known to the detenu can vitiate the detention.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in Memo No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 27.01.2023 setting aside the detention order passed therein and produce the petitioner''s grandson namely Mani @ Ganja Mani, who has been now detained in third respondent Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 20.06.2023, the following order was made:

'' H.C.P. No.1019 of 2023

M.SUNDAR, J.

and

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,)

Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 13.04.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 27.01.2023 bearing reference No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. To be noted, grandmother of detenu is the petitioner.

3. Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner is before us. Learned counsel expresses regret for not representing the matter in the previous listing on 19.06.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of ''Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)'' [''IPC'' for the sake of brevity] in Crime No.651 of 2022 on the file of T-3 Korattur Police Station.

4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that there is a delay in passing the impugned preventive detention order as the detenu was remanded on 29.12.2022 but the impugned preventive detention order has been passed on 27.01.2023.

6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.

7. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.''

2. The aforementioned Admission Board captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

3. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents are before us.

4. To be noted, ''order dated 27.01.2023 bearing reference No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the point that there is a delay in passing the impugned preventive detention order as the detenu was remanded on 29.12.2022 but the impugned prev