ORDER : M.Sundar, J. This common order will now dispose of the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petitions' [hereinafter 'HCPs' in plural and 'HCP' in singular for the sake of brevity and convenience]. 2. To be noted, 'HCP No.1443 of 2022' shall be referred to as 'I HCP', 'HCP No.1556 of 2022' shall be referred to as 'II HCP' and 'HCP No.1602 of 2022' shall be referred to as 'III HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. I HCP has been filed by the brother of detenu in this Court on 22.07.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.99/2022' [hereinafter 'I impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent i.e., jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 4. II HCP has been filed by mother of detenu in this Court on 05.08.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.100/2022' [hereinafter 'II impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent i.e., jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 5. III HCP has been filed by mother of detenu in this Court on 05.08.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.98/2022' [hereinafter 'III impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent i.e., jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent i.e., jurisdictional Inspector of Police is the Sponsoring Authority in all the three HCPs. 6. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel on record for petitioner in I HCP, Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner in II, III HCPs and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents in all the three HCPs are before us. 7. All the aforementioned learned counsel before us submit in one voice that the captioned three HCPs pertain to co-accused in the same ground case and the three impugned detention orders that have been clamped on the three detenus are identical. Saying so, all learned counsel before us made a request to take up captioned three HCPs together and heard them out together. Request acceded to. 8. Saying so, all learned counsel before us made a request to take up captioned three HCPs together and heard them out together. Request acceded to. 8. When the matter was taken up, we were also informed that HCP No.1443 of 2022 i.e., I HCP can be taken up as lead case and the same facts and grounds would apply to II and III HCPs also. Suffice to say that the impugned detention orders have been made by Detaining Authority branding each of the detenu as a 'Goonda' withing the meaning of Section 2(f) 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]. 9. The short point is, in the impugned detention orders, the Detaining Authority has relied on what according to Detaining Authority is a similar case which is Crime No.994 of 2020 for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 397, 307 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the file of S-6, Sankar Nagar police station and an order dated 24.11.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.3636 of 2020 made by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu wherein bail has been granted to the accused in that case. On the basis of that order, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail. 10. Aforementioned order dated 24.11.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.3636 of 2020 i.e., similar case has been annexed qua grounds of detention in the booklets (page No.307 in I HCP, Page No.529 in II HCP and Page No.365 in III HCP). This order made by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu is in English but Tamil translation has not been furnished in the booklets served to the detenus. We had the benefit of perusing the booklets. To be noted, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had the benefit of perusing the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the literacy level of detenu in I HCP is I.T.I, literacy levels of detenus in II HCP and III HCP are school dropouts. We had the benefit of perusing the booklets. To be noted, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had the benefit of perusing the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the literacy level of detenu in I HCP is I.T.I, literacy levels of detenus in II HCP and III HCP are school dropouts. It is submitted that the detenus are only conversant with Tamil (mother tongue) and therefore, 24.11.2020 bail order in similar case not being in Tamil has seriously hampered the detenus' right to make an effective representation. 11. We perused the booklets and showed it to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. There is no disputation, disagreement or contestation that the Tamil translation of the bail order in similar case has not been furnished to the detenus. Therefore, we have no difficulty in persuading ourselves to say that the constitutional guarantee ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India i.e., right to make an effective representation has been infracted / impaired in the case on hand and the impugned detention orders are liable to be dislodged and set aside on this ground. 12. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCPs are allowed : (i) Impugned detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.99/2022 made by the second respondent (I HCP) is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Gopi @ Gopinath, son of Thiru.Kalyanasundaram is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases. (ii) Impugned detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.100/2022 made by the second respondent (II HCP) is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Vignesh @ Eliyappu, son of Mr.Thirumalai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases. (iii) Impugned detention order dated 30.06.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.98/2022 made by the second respondent (III HCP) is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Yuvaraj, son of Mr.Jai Sankar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases.