Khalid, J. - (1.) Special leave granted. The petitioner in the writ petition and the appellant in the appeal are the same. Hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The appeal is against the order dated 8-8-1986, passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing the writ petition filed by- the. petitioner challenging the order of detention passed against him under S. 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The writ petition under Art. 32 seeks to challenge the order of detention separately.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two questions before us. (1) There is variation between Tamil and English version of the grounds of detention served on the petitioner. According to him the order of detention in English states that the detention order has been passed to prevent the detenu from indulging in smuggling activities, while the grounds furnished to him in Tamil discloses that the detention order has been passed with a view to prevent him from transporting contraband goods. The English version would bring the ground under S. 3(1)(i) of the Act while the Tamil version would bring it under S. 3(l)(iii). The detenu knows only Tamil. The difference in this version has caused prejudice to him in making a proper representation. (2) The detaining authority did not despatch all the materials before it to the Advisory Board for the Advisory Board to come to an independent conclusion on the grounds of detention and the need for the detention.;