Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1723 of 2013 dated 26.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 1291 of 2013 341 & 392 IPC 2. H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station Crime No. 1269 of 2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1311 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the detenu has not been furnished with the Tamil version of the arrest card in respect of the adverse cases and ground case, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the arrest card in respect of the adverse cases and ground case in Crime Nos. 1291 of 2013, 1269 of 2013 and 1311 of 2013 respectively alone is enclosed at Page No. 25 of the booklet and the vernacular version of the arrest card in respect of the adverse cases and ground case has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the arrest card in the language known to the detenu would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 6. Therefore, non-furnishing of the arrest card in the language known to the detenu would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Dickey @ Adaikkalaraj, S/o Dhairiyaraj, made in BDFGISSV No. 1723 of 2013 dated 26.11.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.