JUDGMENT (Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Memo No.36/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 14.02.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner''s husband namely, Ganeshkumar, son of Jayakodi, aged about 34 years detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) M. Sundar, J. 1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 14.02.2023 bearing reference No.36/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent. 2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, 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] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3. There are three adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.73 of 2023 on the file of T-15 SRMC Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.K.Mageshwaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. Though very many grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing projected his campaign against the impugned detention order on the incorrect/improper translation point. 4. Mr.S.K.Mageshwaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. Though very many grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing projected his campaign against the impugned detention order on the incorrect/improper translation point. Learned counsel drew our attention to the similar case bail order relied on by the detaining authority in Aravind''s case vide Crl.M.P.No.1759 of 2018 dated 01.02.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, at pages 159 and 160 of the grounds booklet and submitted that the bail order has not been fully translated. We had the benefit of perusing the grounds booklet served on the detenu and we have no reason to disagree with the learned counsel for petitioner. English version of bail order dated 01.02.2018 reads as follows: ''... The murder case pending against the petitioner is of the year 2012 and another case is of the year 2014 and he is on bail in those cases and it is represented by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner regularly appearing before the trial Court in these cases. Taking all the above factors into consideration ...'' whereas the Tamil version of the bail order reads as follows: 6. We are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 10th standard and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. 7. In this view of the matter, we find that flaw in the translation is very serious and it certainly affects the rights of the detenu to make an effective representation which are rights and constitutional safeguard enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case which also on facts arose out of the preventive detention case. In Powanammal case in similar circumstances i.e., similar fact situation, Honourable Supreme Court addressed to itself the issue of providing a detenu with translated copies in a language in which the detenu is conversant with and answered the same interalia by saying that it is imperative and not providing translated copy in a language which the detenu is conversant with vitiates preventive detention. Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and the relevant paragraphs wherein the question which the Honourable Supreme Court addressed to itself and the manner in which the question was answered are paragraphs 6 and 16 which 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. Applying Powanammal principle, we have no hesitation in saying that the impugned detention order in the case on hand deserves to be dislodged. 9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 14.02.2023 bearing reference 36/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ganeshkumar, aged 34 years, son of Thiru.Jayakodi, 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.