JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the order of the second respondent herein in R.C.No.21/2023/M6 D.O.No.03/2023 dated 24.01.2023 passed against the petitioner''s son the detenu namely Ganapathy, son of Babu, aged about 22 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66 and set aside the same, consequently, directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) M. Sundar, J. 1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on 04.07.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 2. The aforementioned order made in the 04.07.2023 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 three adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.919 of 2022 on the file of Kanchi Taluk Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 392, 397, 394 and 506(ii) of IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. 4. Ms.R.Saritha learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, learned counsel for all respondents are before us. 5. To be noted, ''order dated 24.01.2023 bearing reference R.C.No.21/2023/M6-D.O.No.03/2023'' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 6. 5. To be noted, ''order dated 24.01.2023 bearing reference R.C.No.21/2023/M6-D.O.No.03/2023'' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 6. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission learned counsel for petitioner predicated his argument that some pages in the grounds booklet furnished to the detenu are not readable (illegible) and this prevented the detenu from making an effective representation however in the final hearing today learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that the arrest intimation form was not given to the detenu in a language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.259 of the booklet which is the arrest intimation form. No Tamil translation of this form has been furnished to the detenu. 7. As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say. 8. We carefully considered the rival submissions. We find from the confession statement of the detenu at page Nos.233 to 237 of the grounds booklet that the literacy level of the detenu is only 9th Standard in School and that he is a school drop out and the relevant portion reads as under: “TAMIL” 9. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that arrest intimation form forms part of the ground on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made. As this turns on obtaining scenario which comes to light from the booklet which is before us, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say. 10. Be that as it may, we are informed that the detenu is not educated. 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, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Hon''ble Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Hon''ble 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. '' 11. In the case on hand, we find that arrest intimation form which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation qua the impugned detention order. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged. 12. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 24.01.2023 bearing reference Rc.No.21/2023/M6-D.O.No.03/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Ganapathi, aged 21 years, Son of Thiru. Babu 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.