The infraction of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order vitiates the order, rendering it liable for dislodgement in a habeas legal drill.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.04.2023 in No.104/BCDFGISSSV/2023 against the petitioner''s son Nasarullah, Male aged about 23 years, Son of Sanavullah, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 20.04.2023 bearing reference No.104/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] made by second respondent (hereinafter ''detaining authority'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority.

2. Impugned preventive detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, 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] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.96 of 2023 on the file of M-5 Ennore Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired.

6. Elaborating on the aforementioned point on subjective satisfaction, learned counsel for petitioner drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows:

''4. ... In a similar case registered at under section 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, in J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.43/2018, the bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1759/2018. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in M-5 Ennore Police Station, Crime Nos.94/2023 and 96/2023, since in similar case bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time. ...''

7. Thereafter, learned counsel placed before us the grounds booklet as served on the detenu and drew our attention to page Nos.138 to 141 thereat which contain Aravind case bail order (similar case) made in English by the learned Sessions Judge and what according to the Detaining Authority is Tamil translation version of the same i.e., Aravind case bail order. A perusal of the bail order in English and the Tamil translated version brings to light that the bail order in English refers to pending cases against the petitioner with specificity as regards calendar years in paragraph (6) but in the Tamil translation, the same is missing.

8. Learned Prosecutor in response to the above argument submitted that only mentioning of the calender years of pending cases with specificity is