Judgment :- (M. Chockalingam, J.) Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent dated 212. 2007 made in B.D.F.G.I.S.V.V.No.83/07, whereby the detenu Sarangan was termed as Goonda as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit in support of the petition is perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the order under challenge is perused. 3. Admittedly, on the strength of the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu Sarangan was involved in seven adverse cases (1) Cr.No.299/2006 under Sections 341,294(b),307,397 IPC (2) Cr.No.300/2006 under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),353,307 IPC (3) Crime No.388 of 2006 under Sections 147,148,307 &506(ii) IPC (4) Crime No.389 of 2006 under Sections 147,148,307,506(ii) IPC (5) Crime No.399 of 2006 under Sections 147,148,307 IPC read with 3 & 5 of Explosives Substance Act 1908 (6) Crime No.335/2007 under Sections 147, 294(b) and 323 IPC before Chunambedu Police Station and (7) Crime No.559 of 2007 under Section 147,148 and 307 IPC of Madurantakam Police Station and one ground case in Crime No.606 of 2007 registered under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction and recorded that the activities of the detenu Sarangan were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, he has got to be termed as Goonda and also a necessity arose in passing the order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 and accordingly made the order, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Advancing his arguments in support of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of detention came to be passed on 212. 2007 detaining the detenu as a Goonda. The post representation was sent on 1. 2008 and the same was disposed of on 31. 2008 and thus there was a huge delay which remained unexplained and hence it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. 5. Secondly, the detenu was supplied with the copies of the order of detention and it was supplied along with the Tamil version also. The Tamil version is not exactly equivalent to the English version. 2008 and thus there was a huge delay which remained unexplained and hence it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. 5. Secondly, the detenu was supplied with the copies of the order of detention and it was supplied along with the Tamil version also. The Tamil version is not exactly equivalent to the English version. In the detention order ,in page 5 it is found that "further the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Based on the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru Sarangan is Goonda and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." But, when the translation version was given to him, it did not contain "there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future". Under such circumstances, the detenu who was conversant with Tamil, could not understand properly and hence his right to make effective representation was taken away and hence the detention order is infirm. 6. Thirdly, when the materials were placed before the authority, as regards the intimation regarding the Medico legal case made by the MIOT Hospitals and incorporated in the booklet, the detenu in order to understand the same, asked for a translated version of the same in Tamil, but it was not served upon him. Since he could not understand the contents of the same, he was prevented from making a proper and effective representation and hence on that ground also, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor on the above contentions. 8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. As far as the first ground that there was a delay in considering the post detention representation is concerned, relevant materials were placed before this Court. The materials would clearly indicate that the representation was made on 1. 2008 and rejection order was served upon the detenu on 2. 2008. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. As far as the first ground that there was a delay in considering the post detention representation is concerned, relevant materials were placed before this Court. The materials would clearly indicate that the representation was made on 1. 2008 and rejection order was served upon the detenu on 2. 2008. The said representation was considered by the Ministry of PWD & Law on 21. 2008 and the rejection letter was prepared on 21. 2008. Meanwhile, there was a delay of 5 days caused, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that two Saturdays and two Sundays were intervening and there was a delay of three days, which in the opinion of the Court, is neither a delay nor unreasonable one. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 9. As far as the second contention is concerned, the Court has carefully scrutinised both the English version of the order and also Tamil translated version. After consideration, this Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, since what is found in the English version is translated in Tamil version and apart from that, once it is properly conveyed to the detenu about the contents of the detention order in English version, no prejudice would be caused to the detenu. 10. As regards the third contention that there was a request in the course of the representation for Tamil version of Page 299 in respect of intimation of the MIOT Hospitals as if it was a case of Medico legal case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State placed before the Court material indicating that the Tamil version was actually made available, and also it was read out and explained, and it has been signed by the detenu, as could be seen from the available materials. In such circumstances, that contention also cannot be countenanced. Thus, this Court is unable to see any merit in all or any one of the contentions put forth. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this habeas corpus petition deserves an order of dismissal, and accordingly, it is dismissed.