Judgment : G. Chockalingam, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister 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 first respondent passed in No.1811/2013, dated 06.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station in Crime No.3098 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him and this deprived the detenu from making effective representation. He has also submitted that the said act of detaining authority is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised a ground that there is variation in translation in the Vernacular version of the remand order dated 30.11.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned. Therefore, on both these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page Nos.223 to 229 of the booklet – copies of bail orders in similar case, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Further, on verification of the English and Vernacular version of the remand order found in page Nos.219 and 221 of the booklet, it is seen that there is no contradiction in translation. Further, on verification of the English and Vernacular version of the remand order found in page Nos.219 and 221 of the booklet, it is seen that there is no contradiction in translation. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the remand order, 'grounds of arrest explained' is not properly translated in the Vernacular version is not acceptable. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him is only acceptable and on this sole ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others (supra) has been pleased to hold as under: "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material. 4. In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion, that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings." 7. Thus, in the light of the above settled position, in view of supply of illegible copies of the document and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu viz., Eli @ Vairamuthu, S/o. Karunanidhi, made in BDFGISSV No.1811/2013, dated 06.12.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.