Judgment : V.S. Ravi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, namely, Prasanth, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in No.104/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.12.2013 and quash the same and set his son aged about 20 years at liberty from Borstal School, Pudukottai. 2. Brief averments made in the petition as well as the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner by the counsel for the petitioner are as follows :- 2.1 The detenu has been alleged to be involved in two adverse cases, namely, Cr.No.176/2013 registered under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC and Cr.No.1236/2013 registered under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506 (II) IPC on the file of D.2 Sellur Police Station and D1.Tallakulam Police Station respectively. The ground case has been registered in Cr.No.1019/2013 under Sections 341, 147, 148 and 307 IPC and later on altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC on the file of D.2 Sellur Police Station. 2.2 The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, has not followed the procedures established by law and he has not perused the materials placed before him while passing the order of detention. 2.3 It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to satisfy this Court that they have disposed of the representation sent by the detenu expeditiously without any delay. 2.4 Though bail applications filed by the detenu in the ground case and the second adverse case have been pending, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order in a mechanical manner, without waiting for the orders of the Court concerned, predict the minds of the Court by relying upon the bail order granted in Cr.M.P.No.4855/2012, dated 29.08.2012 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, to an accused, namely Aravind @ Aravindakumar S/o. Suresh Pandi, in respect of Cr.No.773/2012 registered u/s 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC on the file of C.5 Karimedu Police Station and the bail order granted in Crl.M.P.No.7131/2013, dated 05.09.2013 to an accused namely Gopi @ Gopinath in respect of Cr.No.588/2013 registered u/s 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The said reliance by the Detaining Authority has no relevancy to the detenu's case and the same is extraneous one. The said reliance by the Detaining Authority has no relevancy to the detenu's case and the same is extraneous one. Therefore, there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the Detention Order. 2.5 In arrest memo in Cr.No.176/13 (1st adverse case) found place at page 16 of the booklet, the name of the accused is shown as 'Prasanth' and the signature of the detenu therein is in English, whereas in the arrest memo in Cr.No.1236/13(2nd adverse case) found place at page number 66 A of the booklet, the name of the accused is shown as 'Prasath' and the signature of the detenu therein is in Tamil. When that is the case, the Detaining Authority, ought to have satisfied himself by querying to the Sponsoring Authority as to whether 'Prasanth' and 'Prasath' are the same person and in the absence of getting such clarification, the same would go to show that the Detaining Authority, has just countersigned the Detention Order in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. 2.6 Likewise, in respect of remand report in Cr.No1236/2013, in the English version in page No.67 of the booklet, the father name of the detenu is shown as 'Ravichandran', whereas in the translated Tamil version, the father name of the detenu is shown as 'Rajendran'. In that aspect also, the Detaining Authority, without getting any clarification, has simply passed the Detention Order, in a mechanical manner. 2.7. The booklet served on the detenu is illegible particularly, page numbers 31, 136, 137, 160, 161, 163, 202 to 208, 240, 338 and 339. In view of the same, the detenu is deprived of making effective representation by understanding those pages. 3. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents, it is stated as follows :- 3.1 The Detaining Authority, has followed the guidelines and procedure laid down under Tamil Nadu Act, 14/1982, perused the materials placed before him, applied his mind and thereafter, came to a subjective satisfaction that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and passed the Detention Order. 3.2 The detaining authority relied upon the bail order granted to the accused Tr.Aravind @ Aravindkumar and Gopi @ Gopinath, in a similar case to the ground case and the 2nd adverse case, as cogent materials and came to a subjective satisfaction, that the detenu would come out on bail in the pending bail applications. 3.3. The inadvertent mistake committed in the arrest memo as well as the typographical error crept in typing the name of the father in Cr.No.1236/2013 would not vitiate the Detention Order. 3.4 The Detention order and grounds of detention have been prepared by the Detaining Authority independently after arriving at subjective satisfaction on the need for detaining the detenu. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the detenu, are without any basis and deserve to be rejected. Hence the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal of the present petition. 4. This Court perused the materials available on record and based upon the submissions on both sides, the following points arise for consideration;- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the above mentioned relief, for the reasons stated in the petition? (ii) Whether the order of preventive detention has been passed, on proper and valid grounds? 5. Admittedly, the detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in two cases that have been registered in Cr.No.176/2013 for the offence under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC and Cr.No.1236/2013 registered under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506 (II) IPC on the file of D.2 Sellur Police Station and D1.Tallakulam Police Station respectively. In the order of detention, the ground case alleged to have been registered on the file of D.2 Sellur Police Station in Crime No.1019 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. 6. Further, the petitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that in arrest memo in Cr.No.176/13 (1st adverse case) found place at page 16 of the booklet, the name of the accused is shown as 'Prasanth' and the signature of the detenu therein is in English, whereas in the arrest memo in Cr.No.1236/13(2nd adverse case) found place at page number 66 A of the booklet, the name of the accused is shown as 'Prasath' and the signature of the detenu therein is in Tamil. Apart from that, in respect of remand report in Cr.No1236/2013, in the English version in page No.67 of the booklet, the father name of the detenu is shown as 'Ravichandran', whereas in the translated Tamil version, the father name of the detenu is shown as 'Rajendran'. On a careful perusal of the said records, it is seen that there is sufficient force in the said submission of the petitioner. 7. Further, in the petition, the petitioner has pointed out that only in exceptional cases the preventive detention order has to be passed and the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with the situation and therefore, the present order of detention is passed in a mechanical manner without following the dictum lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, on a scrutiny of the materials on record, it is seen that there is sufficient force in the said submission of the present petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that certain documents contain in booklet more particularly as found place at page nos.31, 136, 137, 160, 161, 162, 163, 202 to 208, 240, 338 and 339 are not fully legible. Therefore, the detenu is deprived of making effective and meaningful representation by understanding those records. 9. Apart from that, the particulars submitted under the caption “Collectorate” in the proforma furnished on behalf of the respondents, remain blank, whereas in another copy of the proforma, the particulars are given under the caption “Commissioner of Police”. Therefore, it is very much self-contradictory. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the following citations :- (i) In the case reported in (2013) 3 MLJ (Crl) 690 (KIRAN V. STATE), wherein it is held as follows;- “Discrepancy in translation deprives detenu of opportunity to make effective representation to authorities. Right of detenu under Article 22(5) of Constitution infringed and order of detention vitiated. Impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent quashed. Habeas Corpus Petition allowed.” (ii) (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 206 (ANBU V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU), wherein this Court has held as follows :- “Improper translation prevented effective representation” Further, in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Right of detenu under Article 22(5) of Constitution infringed and order of detention vitiated. Impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent quashed. Habeas Corpus Petition allowed.” (ii) (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 206 (ANBU V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU), wherein this Court has held as follows :- “Improper translation prevented effective representation” Further, in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others [JT 1995 (3) S.C. 639], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held as follows: "The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court." In the present case also, the discrepancy in translation has prevented the detenu to make an effective and meaningful representation and also there is non application of mind in passing the detention order by the respondent. 11. The learned Addition Public Prosecutor has also relied on the following decision in support of his contentions :- (i) (2006) M.L.J. (Crl.) 281, (UDHYA RANI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHENNAI), wherein it has been held as follows; "The Detaining Authority was ware of the relevant fact that on the date of detention order, the detenu was in remand and though he has not moved any bail application, it cannot be ruled out hat he will not file any bail application for coming out and in such circumstances, if he come out, he will indulge in future activities, which will prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. . .. The Detaining Authority, after possessing of all the details, has arrived at a proper conclusion and hence, there are no valid grounds for interference." Further, it is a settled law that each and every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. The decision relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, the Detaining Authority has not passed the Detention Order based on cogent materials and also not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 12. The decision relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, the Detaining Authority has not passed the Detention Order based on cogent materials and also not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner raised in the petition, it is seen that the citation relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking note of the ratio laid down by the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the impugned Detention Order has to be set aside, for the above mentioned facts and circumstance and reasons. 13. In the result, the impugned Detention Order in No.104/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.12.2013, passed by the second respondent detaining the detenu namely Prasanth, S/o. Ravichandran, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.