Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. Seeking a writ of habeas corpus one Mrs.Chitra, the wife of the detenu Nalamaharajan, has brought forth this petition challenging the order of detention made by the first respondent in C3/D.O./13/2009 dated 3. 2009, terming him as a Black Marketeer. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that the first respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, has passed an order of detention on 3. 2009, terming the petitioners husband as a Black Marketeer since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of Essential Commodities to the public, and it would cause revenue loss, and hence there arose compelling necessity to detain him under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of essential commodities to the public in future and hence the order came to be passed. 4. A perusal of the materials would indicate that on 2. 2009 at about 2000 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, CSCID, Cuddalore, on receipt of a complaint about the grave irregularities found in a Cooperative Saravanabava Fair Price Shop situated at Thittagudi Taluk in Eraiyur Sugar Mill compound, made an inspection, and it was found that in the A Register maintained in the shop, pages were stealthily printed and added in the last portion, and after further check and verification over all the ration cards belonging to the said fair price shop with the aid of computer, it was detected that the said A Register wrongly contained entries of huge family ration cards which were not belonging to the said Eraiyur Saravanabava Cooperative Fair Price Shop, but those ration cards were actually allotted to the fair price shop situated at various Taluks other than Tittagudi Taluk in the District. Apart from that, A Register contained the necessary ration card numbers, but it was criminally planned that instead of giving original names, some other fictitious names were being entered in the register. Further, it was found that in respect of the supplies of essential commodities alone, the revenue loss per month was Rs.21,362.40, and the total loss for the whole three years would be Rs.7,69,046/-. Further, it was found that in respect of the supplies of essential commodities alone, the revenue loss per month was Rs.21,362.40, and the total loss for the whole three years would be Rs.7,69,046/-. Equally, it was also found that the previous Sales Assistant namely the detenu was presently employed at Thittagudi Saravanabava Fair Price Shop from the date 1. 2009, and he was employed at Eraiyur Fair Price Shop earlier for the period from 1. 2006 to 312. 2008. On the basis of the report given by Taluk Supplies Officer, Thittagudi, a case was registered by CSCID, Cuddalore, in Crime No.41/2009 under Sec.6(2)(3) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and 420 of IPC, and the necessary investigation was taken up. Thus the recommendation was made. 5. On perusal of the entire materials available, the detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of essential commodities to the public, and hence in order to prevent him from doing any such activities in future, he has got to be detained under the enactment by terming him as a black marketeer. Accordingly the order came to be passed. 6. Assailing the order under challenge, the learned Counsel raised the following two points: .(i) Admittedly, two pre-detention representations were made by the wife of the detenu one to the District Collector, Collector, and the other to the District Collector, Villupuram, which is also admitted in the course of the order itself. While it was claimed that such representations were actually considered, there was nothing to indicate that the order of rejection of the representation made by the authority was placed before the Advisory Board, and the order is thus infirm. .(ii) When the detention order was served upon the detenu, a copy of the translated version in Tamil was also served upon him. A comparison would clearly indicate that paragraph 6 of the order as found in the Tamil version is actually a new introduction since it is not found in the English version. Under the circumstances, it did not enable the detenu to understand the contents of the original order that was made by the detaining authority. Therefore, the order is infirm, and it has got to be set aside. 7. Under the circumstances, it did not enable the detenu to understand the contents of the original order that was made by the detaining authority. Therefore, the order is infirm, and it has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. As seen above, the order challenge came to be passed against one Nalamaharajan branding him as a black marketeer as referred to above. The Court after perusal of the entire materials available is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge has got to be set aside for the following two reasons. 9. Firstly, as could be seen from the impugned order, there were two pre-detention representations made by the petitioner-wife one to the Collector, Villupuram, and the other to the Collector, Cuddalore. Though it is found that they were actually considered, and order of rejection was made, nothing is available to indicate that they were actually placed before the Advisory Board. Needless to say in a given case where any pre-detention representation was made, and it was also claimed by the State that the representation was actually considered, a duty is cast upon the authority to place such an order of rejection before the Advisory Board. So long as no material is available to indicate so, this Court has to agree with the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, paragraph 6 of the order as found in the Tamil version is not found in the original order which is in English. Thus it would be quite clear that paragraph 6 in the Tamil version, though it is claimed to be a translated version of the English form, was an introduction. Needless to say that Tamil version is to be prepared and served upon the detenu in order to enable him to understand the contents of the original order. In the instant case, such an introduction of paragraph 6 which was not available in the English version, would not have enabled the detenu to understand the original order. It can even be stated that it would have caused confusion rather. This Court is of the view that both the above grounds are available to the petitioner to set aside the order. 11. It can even be stated that it would have caused confusion rather. This Court is of the view that both the above grounds are available to the petitioner to set aside the order. 11. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.