O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

This order will now dispose of the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition'

[hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

2. When the captioned HCP was listed before this Court 'For Admission' on 01.06.2023, the following proceedings / order was made:

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 26.04.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 31.03.2023 bearing reference S.C.No.03/2023 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

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

3. Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu was registered for alleged offences under Sections 2(1), 2(12)(b), 2(16)(a), 9, 39(1)(a), 50, 51(1) and 52 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in Wildlife Offence Report No.02/2023 on the file of Forest Range Officer, Palacode.

4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Forest Offender' under Section 2(ee) of '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].

5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the arrest of the detenu was not properly intimated to the family members of the detenu.

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

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

3. The aforementioned Admission Board order captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore we are not setting out the same again in this order. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. Be that as it may, we are using the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order in this order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, 'detention order dated 31.03.2023 bearing reference S.C.No.03/2023 made by the Detaining Authority shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' in this order for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

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

5. As would be evident from paragraph No.5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner posited his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the point that arrest of the detenu was not properly intimated to the family members of the detenu but in the final hearing today, learned counsel changed his line of attack and predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that point is not providing translated copy of documents (relied on by the detaining authority) in a language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page Nos.16, 21 and 22 of the booklet which are Check list at the time of remand, Medical Examination Slip and Medical Examination Report. No Tamil translation of the above documents have been furnished to the detenu.

6. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that the Check list a