JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records leading to the detention of petitioner''s son who is detained as Bootlegger at 4th respondent / Central Prison, Cuddalore, by the 2nd respondent vide his order C3/D.O/29/2022 dated 25.10.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 5th respondent to produce the body of the detenu Surya, S/o.Murugan, aged about 25 years, from the 4th respondent / Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. 1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 03.02.2023, this Court made the following order: ''Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 19.01.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 25.10.2022 bearing reference No.C3/D.O/29/2022 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority. 2. Mother of the detenu is the petitioner. 3. Mr.S.T.Raja, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) read with 14A of ''Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937'' [hereinafter ''TNP Act'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] in Crime No.1338 of 2022 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Cuddalore. 4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Bootlegger'' under Section 2(b) of ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority in the detention order has not been supplied to the detenu. 6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks. 7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'' 2. 6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks. 7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'' 2. The aforementioned order made in the 03.02.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also. 3. There are four adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.1338 of 2022 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Cuddalore for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) r/w 14A of TNP Act Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. 4. Mr.S.T.Raja, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. In the Admission Board, the point that the documents relied on by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the detenu was projected, however, in the final hearing Board, learned counsel for petitioner projected his argument in his challenge against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that translated copy of the document relied on by the detaining authority in a language which the detenu is conversant with, has not been furnished to the detenu. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.107 160 of the booklet which is the remand order dated 10.10.2022 pertaining to ground case. No Tamil translation of this document has been furnished to the detenu. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that the above document forms part of the ground on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made. 6. As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say. 7. Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 9th standard and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. 7. Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 9th standard and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The question which the Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court addressed to itself in a similar fact situation is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows: ''6.The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention. 16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. '' 8. In the case on hand, we find that remand order which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned preventive detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same in Tamil, the lone language known to the detenu has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation qua the impugned preventive detention order. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. 9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 25.10.2022 bearing reference C3/D.O./29/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Surya, aged 25 years, son of Thiru.Murugan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.