Judgment :- Basheer, J. Two orders of detention issued by the District Magistrate (District Collector), Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the 'authorised officer') under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, are under challenge in these two writ petitions filed by the spouses of the two detenus. 2. Since the two orders of detention emanate from same set of facts and circumstances and since the grounds of challenge in both the petitions are identical, we are disposing of these two cases by this common judgment. 3. Relevant facts which are essential for considering the question of validity, legality and sustainability of the orders of detention may be briefly noticed. 4. In W.P.(Crl).No.449/2008, the authorized officer had issued Ext.P1 order of detention on October 31, 2008 by which it was directed that the detenu namely Sri. Ramesh, S/o Mallik Shetty, be placed under detention with immediate effect since he is a "known goonda" as defined under the Act. In the grounds of detention, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2, it was stated by the authorized officer that the detenu along with the others had hatched a criminal conspiracy for smuggling illicit spirit to Kerala in lorry No.Kl 11Q 1903 by concealing the same under bags of cement and, by misusing brass tokens meant for Malabar Cements Ltd. to transport cement through Green channel at Walayar check post. 5. The lorry was intercepted by the excise authorities on January 24, 2008 at 13.45 hours at Sales tax Check Post, Walayar. 8540 litres of spirit was recovered from the vehicle. The brass tokens were also recovered. In connection with the above seizure of spirit the excise department had registered Crime No.3/2008 and it was transferred to the police department for further investigation. The above case is being investigated by Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba in Crime No.26/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 I.P.C and under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 6. The above case is being investigated by Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba in Crime No.26/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 I.P.C and under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 6. It is further revealed from the grounds of detention that a special investigating unit under the control of Inter state Illicit Spirit Movement Investigation Team (ISISMIT) is in charge of the investigation and that the detenu along with some others had been party to the criminal conspiracy to smuggle spirit into Kerala by misusing brass tokens meant for transportation of cement from Malabar Cements Ltd through green channel at the check post. It is also revealed that the investigating agency had already arrested some of the accomplices of the detenu. Though the investigation is Complete charge sheet could not be laid against the accused since some of them are still at large. The grounds of detention also refer to an earlier episode of a similar crime involving the detenu. The allegation appears to be that the detenu along with some others had smuggled illicit spirit into Kerala in a lorry bearing Registration No.Kl 10 L 6047. 7. We do not propose to refer to the details of the above and other crimes which are referred to in Ext.P2 grounds of detention, in view of the order that we propose to pass in these two cases. Suffice it to say that the detenu Sri. Ramesh, who is allegedly involved in several cases of smuggling of illicit spirit to Kerala has been ordered to be detained on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authorized officer. 8. In W.P.(Crl.)No.464/2008, Sri Santhosh, S/o. Natesh, is the detenu. He is also alleged to have indulged in smuggling of illicit spirit to Kerala. The last such episode in which the detenu is allegedly involved is also in relation to seizure of 8500 litres of spirit from vehicle No.KL 11 Q 1903 referred to above. In this case, the order of detention was issued by the authorized officer on November, 20, 2008. In Ext.P2, the authorized officer refers to certain other crimes of similar nature as well, in which the detenu had been allegedly involved. Yet again, we do not deem it necessary to refer to those crimes in view of the order that we propose to pass. 9. Sri. In Ext.P2, the authorized officer refers to certain other crimes of similar nature as well, in which the detenu had been allegedly involved. Yet again, we do not deem it necessary to refer to those crimes in view of the order that we propose to pass. 9. Sri. M.K. Damodaran learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assail the two orders of detention primarily on the following grounds: (a) The conclusion arrived at by the authorized officer that the two detenus are "known goondas" as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act is totally erroneous and untenable. (b) The order of detention is vitiated by failure of the authorities to furnish copies all the relevant documents especially the bail orders. (c) The two detenus who admittedly hail from the State of Karnataka know only Kannada. They are not familiar with or well versed in English. They do not know Malayalam at all. Further, most of the vital documents including the order of detention furnished to the detenus are in English. Translated versions of only 6 out of 31 documents have been furnished to the detenu. (d) Non application of mind is writ large on the face of the orders of detention. (e) The order of detention is also vitiated due to non-compliance of the provisions contained in section 7(1), 7(3) and also Section 10 (3) of the Act. 10. The learned senior counsel however submits that even before he addresses his arguments on the points formulated above, he will first of all raise the question of sustainability of the order in view of serious illegality committed by the Advisory Board while giving its opinion to the Government that there was sufficient reason to continue the detention of the detenus for the maximum period of six months. 11. It is a pointed out by the learned senior counsel that in their separate representations submitted by the detenus before the Advisory Board, it was specifically requested by them that they may be permitted to engage a counsel to argue their case before the advisory Board. But the two detenus were denied the said privilege. He concedes that the detenus were heard by the advisory Board. But the detenus being not conversant either in English or Malayalam and the members of the Board not being well versed in Kannada, it was impossible for the two detenus to make their submissions effectively. But the two detenus were denied the said privilege. He concedes that the detenus were heard by the advisory Board. But the detenus being not conversant either in English or Malayalam and the members of the Board not being well versed in Kannada, it was impossible for the two detenus to make their submissions effectively. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that denial of opportunity to engage a counsel before the Board has resulted in grave prejudice and irreparable injury to the detenus. 12. Per contra, it is contended by Sri. Ravindranath, learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, that the grievance now aired on behalf of the two detenus is only imaginary and wholly unsustainable. It is contended by Sri. Ravindranath that involvement of the two detenus in the illegal smuggling activities is beyond dispute a revealed from the materials collected by the investigating agency. Though it may be correct to say that translated copies of all the documents were not furnished to the detenus, Kannada translation of the relevant and material documents, particularly the grounds of detention was in fact furnished to them to enable them to understand the reason why they were ordered to be detained. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that translated versions of the confession statements of the accomplices like Sampath, Dhipin, Muthukumar etc indicating involvement of the detenus were also furnished to the detenus. It is further contended by sri. Ravindranath that non-furnishing of translated version of some other document will not have any adverse impact at all. It is pointed out by the him that the records clearly reveal that both the detenus know English. In fact sri. Santhosh, the detenu in W.P.(Crl).464/2008, had his school education in an English Medium Convent as admitted by him before the Advisory Board. It is thus contended by Sri. Ravindranath that the contentions to the contrary now raised