VALLI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Murali, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 31.03.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) At the foremost, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the relevant paragraphs in the grounds of detention, both English and Tamil version, has contended that though it is stated at one place that the detenu was lodged at Central Prison, Vellore, in the penalty-mate paragraph, the detaining authority has informed the detenu that "if he wishes to make any representation to the State Government, he should address it to the Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, in which he is going to be detained, as expeditiously as possible." The same has been correctly stated in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention. However, the point is that though the detaining authority has specifically stated in the detention order that the detenu was remanded for 15 days by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Cheyyar, and lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore, it is not clear in respect of making representation to the Government and the Advisory Board wherein the detaining authority has stated that he is going to be detained in Central Prison, Vellore. Inasmuch as the same mistake occurred in the Tamil version also, it is the grievance of the detenu that he was confused and he could not make effective representation. On going through the above statement, we verified the English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention. We agree with the said contention. We are satisfied that because of the error in para 6 of both English and Tamil version of grounds of detention, the detenu was prevented from making effective representation. On this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.