Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The detenu by name M.Thangaraj is detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the order of the 2nd respondent, namely the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, dated 19.07.2006. The detenu is branded as a Goonda. The detaining authority had based the grounds of detention on three adverse cases, apart from the ground case. 2. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and she has questioned the order of detention on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copies of material papers and in view of the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish legible copies, his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated. Her further challenge is that for the same reason, the detaining authority could not have applied his mind to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu must be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India mandates: "When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". The Constitutional imperatives in Article 22(5) are two fold: (i) The detaining authority, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention, indicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. 5. The said right is guaranteed with an object of providing a reasonable opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation. In the absence of the relevant or the vital materials, the effective representation, which has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5), cannot be ensured. 5. The said right is guaranteed with an object of providing a reasonable opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation. In the absence of the relevant or the vital materials, the effective representation, which has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5), cannot be ensured. Unless the copies of the documents relied in the grounds of detention are furnished, the grounds of detention would not be complete. The failure to furnish such of those documents would amount to denial of right to make an effective representation. This law has been consistently held by the Apex Court in (i) (1980) 2 SCC 270 - Ramachandra A. Kamat v. Union of India; (ii) (1980) 4 SCC 531 - Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India; (iii) (1980) 4 SCC 525 - Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India. 6.The effect of non-supply of such material documents, which are vital or relied upon in the grounds of detention, also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [ (1990) 2 SCC 1 ] and the Apex Court has held as follows: "Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of the detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but no hold that it amounted to denial of the detenus right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case." 7. However, the Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India [ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ] while considering the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish copy of the bail application and the order had observed as follows. However, the Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India [ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ] while considering the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish copy of the bail application and the order had observed as follows. "12.(3) If the detenu has moved for bail then the application and the order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non-application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody. 12.(6)In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu." 8. Though the detenu is also entitled to the copies of the material documents, only such of those material documents on which the detaining authority formed the opinion for the detention and alone could be called as vital. Thus, all material documents which are placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority should be furnished. In this context, the detenu must show not only the fact that the document is vital, but also it is relied upon in the grounds of detention as well as the non-supply of the said document has adversely affected his right to make an effective representation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that supply of illegible copies of the material documents to the detenu would vitiate the order of detention. (i) Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others - 1990 (Supp) SCC 59; (ii) Dharmista Bhagat vs. State of Karnataka - 1989 (Supp.2) SCC 155; (iii) Mehrunissa vs. State of Maharashtra - (1981) 2 SCC 709 ; and (iv) Bupinder Singh vs. Union of India - 1987(2) SCC 234 . 10. (i) Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others - 1990 (Supp) SCC 59; (ii) Dharmista Bhagat vs. State of Karnataka - 1989 (Supp.2) SCC 155; (iii) Mehrunissa vs. State of Maharashtra - (1981) 2 SCC 709 ; and (iv) Bupinder Singh vs. Union of India - 1987(2) SCC 234 . 10. Insofar as Manjit Singh Grewal case is concerned, the Supreme Court was considering the grievance of the petitioner therein that illegible copies of panchanama (recovery mahazar) were furnished and the Supreme Court had laid down that illegible copies were furnished to the detenu even after the request of the detenu and in that context, the Apex Court has held the order of detention is vitiated, as the detenu was prevented from making representation. Equally in Dharmista Bhagat case, the Supreme Court was considering the case of the detenu that inspite of the request the detaining authority had only furnished illegible copy of Panchanama (recovery mahazar), which was also a document much was relied upon in the grounds of detention. In that case the said mahazar was not mere material but it was relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at a conclusion for issuing of an order of detention. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the non-supply of legible copy of panchanama on which the grounds of detention was made, inspite of the request made by the detenu to supply legible copy of the same, renders the order of detention illegal and bad. 11. In Bhupinder Singh Case, the detenu made a request to the authorities to furnish legible copies of the documents supplied to him along with the grounds of detention as they were not legible and the same was supplied to the detenu after the order of detention was confirmed by the Government. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the detenu was denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. 12. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the detenu was denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. 12. In Mehrunissa Case, the Supreme Court was considering the question of non-supply of panchanama (recovery mahazar) said to have been recorded at the time of the seizure of articles and statement said to have been made by the detenu at the time of enquiry and the reply of the State that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the detenu as the detenu was already aware of the contents of the documents. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that failure of the detaining authority to supply copies of such documents vitiated the detention. 13. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 170 - Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of T.N. and others was considering a case of legal requirement of furnishing the documents to the detenu. In that case, the challenge was that the documents referred to in the grounds of detention have not at all been supplied, namely the application for bail submitted by the detenu, the counter filed by the Customs Department thereto and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail application. While considering the above, the Apex Court has held as follows: "8.We may make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner that the order granting bail has been supplied to him admits it. Application for bail has been submitted by the detenu himself when the order of detention was passed which was subsequent to the order granting bail. We cannot comprehend as to how a prior order rejecting bail would be of any relevance in the matter when it was later succeeded by the orders granting bail. ...." 14. Application for bail has been submitted by the detenu himself when the order of detention was passed which was subsequent to the order granting bail. We cannot comprehend as to how a prior order rejecting bail would be of any relevance in the matter when it was later succeeded by the orders granting bail. ...." 14. Thus, in matters of challenge like this, the primary consideration for interfering with the order of detention is as to whether the documents which are either not supplied or supplied but with illegible copies, are how far relevant and vital for the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion for passing the order of detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on pages 47, 48, 154 and 156 of the paper book and contend that they are not legible and therefore the detenu was denied his right to make an effective representation. 15. Page 47 is the copy of the FIR in the second adverse case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the contents of the complaint as written in the FIR are illegible and hence the detenu was unable to make an effective representation. We find absolutely no merit in the said contention as the detenu has been furnished with the copy of the very complant itself as could be seen from page No.49, which is legible and this complaint alone is completely reproduced in the FIR and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the detenu was denied to make an effective representation cannot be accepted and for the said reason, the contention that the order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy of FIR falls to ground. 16. Insofar as the confession statement of the detenu in the ground case furnished to the detenu and found at page No.153 of the book let is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the last two lines in page No.154 is not legible and in fact one line is totally missing and hence the detenu was denied the right to make an effective representation. In addition to the above, learned counsel would submit that with such an illegible copy the detaining authority could not have applied his mind to the confession statement. 17. In addition to the above, learned counsel would submit that with such an illegible copy the detaining authority could not have applied his mind to the confession statement. 17. Insofar as the first limb of the said contention is concerned, the confession statement has been merely referred to in the grounds of detention and there is nothing to indicate that on the basis of the said confession statement the detaining authority had formed his opinion to base the detention order and in that sense, the confession statement cannot be considered to be a relied upon document. As regard to the second limb of the contention as to non-application of mind, we directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to produce the file, which contains the copy of the confession statement that was perused by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. In that copy, page No.154 is legible and the last two sentences are found therein. In such circumstances, the detaining authority had the opportunity to peruse the confession statement in full form and apply his mind to the said document and hence the second limb of the contention is also liable to be rejected. Further, no material is placed before us to satisfy that due to illegible copies furnished to the detenu, as alleged in the petition, he was prevented from making an effective representation. Merely because one line at an insignificant portion of the confession is not legible, there is nothing to elucidate that the detenu was incapacitated from making an effective representation. 18. Hence, for all these reasons, we find no merit in the habeas corpus petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.