Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 24.03.2007, whereby, her son has been detained as ‘Goonda’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The ground on which the detention order came to be passed is that on 25.02.2007 at about 10.15 A.M., one Pandiyamani, husband of complainant Ranganayagi, was returning to his house from Saloon along with his friend Sathiyanaraynan, at which time, the detenu and others, who had previous enmity with him, stood hiding near his residence and, on noticing him, rushed near him and indiscriminately attacked him with deadly weapons, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. The public who were at the spot, seeing the atrocious activities of the detenu and others, started running to safer places fearing danger to their lives and properties and normalcy of the area was greatly affected. On receipt of the complaint, the Inspector of Police, H-8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No.151 of 2007 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 336, 427 and 506 (2) IPC., took up investigation of the case and arrested the detenu on 25.02.2007. The Detaining Authority, taking note of one adverse case against the detenu and his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention branding him as Goonda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the grounds of detention in English, the Detaining Authority did not make mention of observation mahazar, but mentioned the same in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in the language known to him ie., in Tamil, however, copy of such document viz., observation mahazar, has not been furnished to the detenu; thus, he was prevented from making an effective representation. Hence, the ultimate order of detention may be quashed. 4. We carefully considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H.8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station, visited the spot and seized the plain earth and blood-stained earth under cover of mahazar and he also seized the broken bottle pieces scattered on the roadside under cover of mahazar. In the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H.8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station, visited the spot and seized the plain earth and blood-stained earth under cover of mahazar and he also seized the broken bottle pieces scattered on the roadside under cover of mahazar. The detenu, not being conversant with English Language, was supplied with a copy of grounds of detention in the vernacular language, wherein, the above portion has been translated as here-under:- Thus, in the grounds of detention in Tamil, the Detaining Authority had chosen to mention Observation Mahazar, which relates to the scene of occurrence. As rightly pointed out, first of all, there is no mentioning at all of the observation mahazar in the grounds of detention in English. Secondly, the detenu was not supplied with a copy of the document viz., observation mahazar, enabling him to submit an effective representation. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the ultimate order of detention is liable to be quashed. 5. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is quashed the and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause.