Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenue by name Ravichandran @ Ravi @ Tailor Ravi, who has been detained by the order of detention passed by the first respondent branding him as an immoral traffic offender, in exercise of the powers conferred under 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 2. We have heard Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the respondents. 3. While challenging the above said order of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu has not been served with the true copies of translated version of grounds of detention in the language known to him viz., Tamil. He would also draw our attention on matter of copy of the English version of the order of detention supplied to the detenue and submit that the grounds of detention bears reference as to the three adverse cases viz., Crime Nos. 106 of 2005, 183 of 2005 and 2 of 2006 of Anti-vice Squad Police Station. However, the Tamil Version of grounds of detention bears reference, only as to the cases registered in Cr.No.106 of 2005 and 183 of 2005 on the file of Anti Vice Squad Police Station. However, in the Tamil Version, it was stated that the detaining authority had satisfied with the evidence available and arrived at the conclusion that the detenu had involved in all the three cases in order to form its subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention in question. Therefore, by way of representation dated 212. 2007, the copies of the true Tamil Version of grounds of detention was asked for on behalf of the detenu. However, the representation was rejected on 09.01.2008. In fact, the copies which were requested by the petitioner were served only on 20.02.2008 that too after the Advisory Board meeting which was held on 24.01.2008. In view of the above, the detenue had been denied his valuable right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board as to the third adverse case referred to in the grounds of detention. In view of the above, the detenue had been denied his valuable right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board as to the third adverse case referred to in the grounds of detention. A perusal of the order of detention would go to show that the case registered in Cr.No.2 of 2006 on the file of Anti Vice Squad P.S. was relied upon by the detaining authority to form its subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore, submit that the order of detention passed against the detenue is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. We have carefully perused the original copy of the Tamil version of the grounds of detention served on the detenu. The case registered in Cr.No.183 of 2005 referred to as second adverse case, has been again typed as third adverse case in the Tamil version of grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, instead of giving details as to case registered in Cr.No.2 of 2006, which was taken as third adverse case. There is absolutely no explanation, as to why the petitioner was not served with the true Tamil version of the grounds of detention, that too within the period of five days as contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Therefore, the non supply of true and correct translated version of grounds of detention in the language known to the detenue viz., Tamil, that too within the time stipulated under the Act would in our considered view, vitiate the order of detention. 5. There is one more aspect to be considered viz., that detaining authority not only failed to furnish the true and correct Tamil translated version of grounds of detention to the detenue, but also inspite of representation dated 212. 2007 from the detenue seeking for such copy, the copies were not furnished to the detenu immediately after the request. The representation was rejected only on 09.01.2009 and even in the order of rejection, it is mentioned that the case registered in Crime No.2 of 2006 has been relied upon by the detaining authority to form its subjective satisfaction to pass the order of detention in question. The representation was rejected only on 09.01.2009 and even in the order of rejection, it is mentioned that the case registered in Crime No.2 of 2006 has been relied upon by the detaining authority to form its subjective satisfaction to pass the order of detention in question. However, on realising the mistake committed earlier, true translated version of the order of detention in Tamil was furnished to the detenu on 20.02.2008. It must be borne in mind, that the detenue is entitled to place the representation as well the order of rejection passed on such representation before the Advisory Board for its consideration. The Advisory Board meeting was held on 24.01.2008. From the fact there is no dispute that the request of the detenu for supply of true version of translated copies of grounds of detention as early as on 212. 2007 was rejected by the Government on 09.01.2008. However, the copy of the same was not furnished before the Advisory Board at the time of its meeting which was held on 24.01.2008 and furnishing of such copy after the Advisory Board meeting cannot be considered to be a proper compliance giving opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board. Therefore, the detenue had been denied his valuable right to make his effective representation before the Advisory Board as to his earlier representation and the consequential order of rejection of the representation. 6. For the above said reasons, the the Habeas Corpus Petition should succeed. Accordingly the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 112. 2007 passed by the first respondent against the detenu by name Ravichandran @ Ravi @ Tailor Ravi S/o.Singaram is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.