Judgment :- S. Tamilvanan, J This Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of detention, dated 27.05.2008 passed by the second respondent herein under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu himself has filed this petition. As per the order of detention, there are two adverse cases, registered against the detenu. The first case was registered in Cr.No.599/2007 on the file of the F.5, Choolaimedu Police Station, under Sections 448 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC, for the alleged occurrence taken place on 25.05.2007. The second case was registered in Cr.No.1096 of 2007 by the same police station, under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and other sections of IPC, for the alleged occurrence taken place on 23.09.2007. After filing charge sheet, both the cases are pending for trial in C.C.No.5153 of 2007 and C.C.No.183 of 2007 respectively. .3. As per the ground case, on 22.04.2008, at about 10.15 p.m, while the defacto complainant Jagan was standing in front of his old book shop, the detenu came along with three other persons, who are accused in that case and the detenu attacked the defacto complainant over his left side of his head by patta knife and caused bleeding injury. When the defacto complainant raised hue and cry, the detenu and others attacked him by knife and caused various injuries. When the public who were witnessing the occurrence rushed to apprehend him, the detenu threatened them with patta knife, thereby created fear and panic in the minds of the people, who were witnesses to the occurrence at the scene of occurrence, then they escaped from the scene of occurrence. The statement given by the defacto complainant was reduced into writing and after obtaining his signature, the case in Cr.No.511 of 2008, under Sections, 341, 324, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC was registered, on the file of the F.5, Choolaimedu Police Station. 4. Considering the materials placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, the detenu was detained, as per Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, on the ground that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 5. The petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds. 4. Considering the materials placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, the detenu was detained, as per Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, on the ground that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 5. The petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds. According to the petitioner, he has filed a bail application on 26.05.2008 in the ground case and it was pending, while passing the order of detention by the sponsoring authority, however, the same was not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, which vitiates the order of detention. In the representation, dated 25.06.2008, though the petitioner herein had asked copy of the bail application filed in the ground case and also the order passed thereon to make effective representation, the said request was not complied with. The detention order and grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu in Telugu, the language known to the detenu. 6. On the other, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the detenu is only residing in Chennai and he has signed in his affidavit and other documents only in Tamil as Iyyappan, therefore, there was no necessity for the respondents to furnish translated copies of documents in Telugu. 7. We verified the affidavit filed by the detenu, wherein he has signed only in Tamil and his address is also stated with door number and street at Choolaimedu, Chennai. In such circumstances, raising the ground that the copies were not supplied to him in Telugu, in order to make effective representation is not legally sustainable to attack the detention order, since it is crystal clear that the detenu is well versed with Tamil and a literate in Tamil. .8. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, only after the materials were placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, the detenu filed his bail application and it was not brought to their notice before the order being passed, therefore, it cannot be construed as a ground for challenging the order. It is seen that the detention order was passed on 27.05.2008, where as the petitioner filed bail application only on the previous day, i.e., 26.05.2008, before that the material papers were placed before the detaining authority. It is seen that the detention order was passed on 27.05.2008, where as the petitioner filed bail application only on the previous day, i.e., 26.05.2008, before that the material papers were placed before the detaining authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pendency of the bail application was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. 9. It is seen that out of the two adverse cases, the second case in Cr.No.1096 of 2007 has been registered under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. As per the ground case registered in Cr.No.511 of 2008 on 22.04.2008, there are specific allegations against the detenu by the defacto complainant, that he had attacked the defacto complainant with patta knife and caused bleeding injuries. As per the rough sketch, available at page number 38 of the typed set, the place of occurrence is shown as a public place in a residential area. As per the seizure mahazar, blood stained earth was seized from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses, apart from sample earth. The copy of the Accident Register prepared on 22.04.2008 at 10.50 p.m, shows that the defacto complainant sustained injuries at various vital parts of his body, since he was attacked by patta knife. The confession statement given by the detenu, leading to recovery of material objects was recorded in the presence of witnesses, on his surrender before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 10. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the materials available on record is sufficient to have subjective satisfaction. The detaining authority has clearly stated that the materials placed before him with regard to the adverse cases and the ground case is sufficient to have subjective satisfaction to consider the detenu as a "Goonda", as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1982. Similarly, the petitioner had asked the copy of his own bail petition and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the bail petition filed by the petitioner and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate were not relied on documents by the detaining authority and hence, non-supply of the said documents do not vitiate the impugned order of detention. .11. It is seen that there is no delay in passing the order. .11. It is seen that there is no delay in passing the order. The copies of the relied on documents were furnished to the detenu, without causing any undue delay. The plea of the detenu to furnish translated copies in Telugu cannot be accepted, since he himself has signed in the affidavit and in all the documents only in Tamil. The other grounds raised in the affidavit are also not sufficient to attack the impugned order of detention and to allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or material illegality in the impugned order to allow the petition and to set aside the order of detention. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. No costs.