Judgment : V.S. Ravi, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and she has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the second respondent in No.86/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 09.10.2013 and to produce the detenu, Murugan @ Bala Murugan @ Nadungi Murugan, aged about 33 years before this Court, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty 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 come to adverse notice of the police in two adverse cases, which have been registered in Cr.No.473/2013 u/s 394 @ 120(b), 203, 381 and 395 IPC and Cr.No.699/2013 u/s 379 IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. The Detention Order has been passed based upon on the ground case in Cr.No.702 of 2013 registered under section 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. 2.2 The Detention Order passed by the second respondent is illegal and the same has been passed mechanically without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. 2.3 The Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent is against the procedure as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as well as in violation of the personal liberty of the detenu as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2.4 The Detaining Authority without cogent material has presumed that in future, the detenu will also be involved and the act of the detenu would amount to public disturbance and has passed the Detention Order without proper application of mind. 2.5 When the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case is pending, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. However, the Detention Order has been passed by relying upon the cases similar to detenu cases. The similar cases referred to by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention are not comparable with the cases relating to the detenu in all aspects. 2.6 The copies of the detention order and other connected copies supplied by the respondents are illegible and there is discrepancy in the translation. 3. The similar cases referred to by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention are not comparable with the cases relating to the detenu in all aspects. 2.6 The copies of the detention order and other connected copies supplied by the respondents are illegible and there is discrepancy in the translation. 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 the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and passed the Detention Order. 3.2 The detenu came to adverse notice in two cases and again in ground case, which would establish the fact that the detenu's habit of committing offences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. 3.3 The detaining Authority relied upon the bail order granted to the accused Tr.Kanan and Ravi @ Ravichandran similar to the ground case and 2nd adverse case of the detenu respectively, as cogent materials and came to a subjective satisfaction. 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 by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 adverse notice of the police in two adverse cases, which have been registered in Cr.No.473/2013 u/s 394 @ 120(b), 203, 381 and 395 IPC and Cr.No.699/2013 u/s 379 IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. (ii) Whether the order of preventive detention has been passed on proper and valid grounds? 5. Admittedly, the detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in two adverse cases, which have been registered in Cr.No.473/2013 u/s 394 @ 120(b), 203, 381 and 395 IPC and Cr.No.699/2013 u/s 379 IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. The Detention Order has been passed based on the ground case in Cr.No.702 of 2013 registered under section 392 r/w 397, and 506(ii) IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. 6. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner has categorically stated that the detention order is not communicated to the mother of detenu in a perspective manner and it affected the detenu's right envisaged as under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also it is stated that the averments made in the paragraph 9 of the affidavit are denied and they are false. The family intimation dated 09.10.2013 intimating the arrest and detention of the detenu has been served to Tr.R.Pandi, father of the detenu on 10.10.2013 under acknowledgment. However, in the same counter affidavit itself, the second respondent has categorically stated the detenu's name, as Tr.Murugan @ Balamurguan @ Nadungi Murugan, S/o. Rajamani Thevar. Thus, from the above mentioned details, it is clear that the detention order has not been communicated to the mother of detenu in a perspective manner, as pointed out in the present petition. 7. Further, the petitioner has pointed out that the vital document relating to the detention order has not been supplied with correct translation and therefore, an effective representation could not have been made by the detenu. In the booklet filed on behalf of the respondents regarding bail application filed on behalf of the detenu in respect of the first adverse case, the application number is mentioned as Cr.M.P.No.4102 of 2013 in the Tamil version at page 215, whereas no number is mentioned in the English version at page 214. Further, in the index to the booklet filed by the respondent in serial Nos.76 and 77 with regard to the pages 214 and 215, the particulars and details of the record mentioned as remand extension report of the present detenu Tr.Murugan @ Balamurguan @ Nadungi Murugan. Further, in the index to the booklet filed by the respondent in serial Nos.76 and 77 with regard to the pages 214 and 215, the particulars and details of the record mentioned as remand extension report of the present detenu Tr.Murugan @ Balamurguan @ Nadungi Murugan. However, the said Murugan's name has not been mentioned in the said records. The respondents are bound to give the true and valid translation copy of English and Tamil. In such circumstances only the petitioner has rightly contended that the Tamil and English version are not very much clear and it has also disclosed the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Further, the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the discrepancy in the said translation has clearly established non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the said Detention Order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions : (i) (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” In the present case also the discrepancy in translation has prevented the detenu to make an effective and meaningful representation and there is non application of mind in passing the detention order by the respondent. 9. Further, in the case of 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." 10. These safeguards are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court." 10. Furthermore, in the case of Kasthuri V. District Collector and District Magistrate {(2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 248}, it is held as follows;- "As per various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the following factors are considered as violation in preventive detention cases: (a) Non-intimation of the detention order as to any of the family members or friends within a reasonable time. (b) Delay in considering the representation made by the detenu or any other person interested, on behalf of the detenu. (c) Non-supply of copies of material documents relied on by the detaining authority. (d) Furnishing illegible copies of documents, so as to prevent detenu from making effective representation under the Act. (e) Non-furnishing of copies translated in the language known to the detenu for making effective representation. (f) Non application of mind by detaining authority in having subjective satisfaction while passing the order." 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and the grounds of the petitioner raised in the petition 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. 12. In the result, the impugned Detention Order in No.86/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 09.10.2013, passed by the second respondent detaining the detenu namely Murugan @ Bala Murugan @ Nadungi Murugan, aged about 33 years S/o. Rajamani Thevar, 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.