Judgment G. Chockalingam, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Black Marketeer" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 3rd respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.95/2013 dated 28.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Section of law 1 Civil supplies CID, Chennai Unit Crime No. 193 of 2012 Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 2 Civil supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit Crime No. 67 of 2013 Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 19.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Vellore CSCID in Crime No.267 of 2013 for offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of EC Act, 1955. 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 focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copy of the document, which was annexed in the booklet, which has depvied the detenu to make his 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 and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page No.40 to 44 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of document, which is an order passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai granting permission to police for custody of the accused / detenu, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. 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. 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 copy of custody order and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the 3rd respondent, detaining the detenu Ruban @ Rubanraj @ Rubalingam, S/o. Subramani, made in C3.D.O.No.95/2013 dated 28.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.