Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 16.07.2007, whereby, he 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para No.3 the grounds of detention in English, wherein, it has been stated as follows: " ... The Inspector of Police visited the spot and prepared observation mahazar. ... ", and then drawn our attention to the Tamil translation thereof, which reads as follows: Likewise in the same paragraph of the English version, it has been mentioned as follows:- " ... by assaulting the public personnel has created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. " and the translation of the said portion reads as follows:- Learned counsel argues that there is variation between the Tamil and English versions of the grounds of detention, which led to confusion and resulted in prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that while translating the document, such an error has occurred, and that the discrepancy being trivial and minor in nature, the same would in no way prejudice the detenu. 4. A careful perusal of the Tamil and English versions of the grounds of detention in its entirety shows that, after narration of the facts and other particulars, a conclusion has been reached for the purpose of detaining the petitioner/detenu under preventive detention. Of course, the aforementioned text is not happily translated, however, we find that there is no deviation in conveying the crux of the facts in Tamil, thus, there could not have been any confusion for the detenu in understanding the point at issue, therefore, we find no merit in the ground raised to assail the detention order. 5. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.