ORDER : 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of her husband M. Saravana under detention order in REV-CSECOPDL (PRC)/6/2023-MAGL4, dated 13.09.2023 passed by 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt. No. 2119, General Administration (SPL [LAW AND ORDER]) Department, dated 30.10.2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith. 2. As per the proceedings dated 13.09.2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] treating the detenue as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in notorious criminal activities with other associates and even though a number of cases were registered against him, he did not change his attitude and increasing his activities day to day and extending them to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States. Following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved were taken as ground for ordering his detention: S. No. Crime No. & Date Accused No. Arrest P.T. Warrant produced date 1 Cr. No. 53/2019, U/s 143, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354, 509, 506 r/w 149 IPC of Chittoor II Town PS A1 Anticipatory Bail was granted vide Crl. M.P. No. 1114/2019, dated 04.07.2019 before the Hon’ble IXth ADJ Court, Chittoor 2 Cr. No. 123/2019, U/s 307, 323 IPC of Chittoor II Town PS Solo 25.09.2019 Accused was arrested and produced before the Hon’ble IVth AJFCM Court, Chittoor and sent for judicial custody and the accused got bail Hon’ble VIII ADJ court, Chittor vide Crl. M.P. No. 1571/2019, dated 03.10.2019 3 Cr. No. 463/2022, U/s 323, 307, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC of Chittoor II Town Police Station A1 25.12.2022 Accused was arrested and produced before Hon’ble IVth AJFCM Court, Chittoor and sent for judicial custody and the accused got bail Hon’ble IX ADJ Court, chittor vide Crl M.P. No. 111/2023, dated 16.02.2023 4 Cr. M.P. No. 1571/2019, dated 03.10.2019 3 Cr. No. 463/2022, U/s 323, 307, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC of Chittoor II Town Police Station A1 25.12.2022 Accused was arrested and produced before Hon’ble IVth AJFCM Court, Chittoor and sent for judicial custody and the accused got bail Hon’ble IX ADJ Court, chittor vide Crl M.P. No. 111/2023, dated 16.02.2023 4 Cr. No. 465/2022, U/s 307, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Chittoor II Town PS A7 09.01.2023 Accused was produced through PT warrant before IVth AJFCM, Court Chittor and sent for judicial custody and accused got bail Hon’ble IX ADJ Court, Chittoor vide Crl. M.P. No. 191/2023, dated 02.03.2023 5 Cr. No. 213/2023, U/s 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Chittoor II Town PS A1 Served notice to the accused U/s 41(a) Cr.P.C (Station Bail on 20.07.2023) In detention order as well as the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that he is a gangster involving in violent activities of attempt to murder and bodily offences by creating terror in the minds of general public and he is also an aggressive, highhanded anti-social element, chosen the path of eliminating the opponents by maintaining a criminal gang, posing himself as notorious goonda in the locality by creating terror in the minds of public. He is a habitual criminal, involved in series of offences in proximity of time, thereby causing disturbance to the public order. Hence the detention order. 3. In the writ petition and reply affidavit, the detention is challenged on two main grounds. The detenue was a Tamilian who was born and brought up in the State of Tamil Nadu and that he can speak, write and understand only in Tamil language. However, strangely the detaining authority has supplied the detention material in Telugu and English languages instead of his mother tongue Tamil and thereby detenue could not make an effective representation to the Government and the Advisory Board and therefore he was severely prejudiced. The detention order, for this gross violation became illegal and unsustainable. 4. Nextly, the detention order is challenged on the ground that the five cases recognized for detention have no proximity among them, inasmuch as, the first two crimes i.e. Cr. Nos. 53/2019 and 123/2019 were of the year 2019, whereas Cr. Nos. 463/2022 and 465/2022 were of the year 2022 and the last crime i.e. Cr. 4. Nextly, the detention order is challenged on the ground that the five cases recognized for detention have no proximity among them, inasmuch as, the first two crimes i.e. Cr. Nos. 53/2019 and 123/2019 were of the year 2019, whereas Cr. Nos. 463/2022 and 465/2022 were of the year 2022 and the last crime i.e. Cr. No. 213/2023 is of the year 2023 and therefore there is a long gap between first two crimes and other crimes. As there is no live link between one crime and another and the date of detention order, the detention order became per se is illegal for taking the stale and irrelevant material. 5. Respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending that the detention order, grounds of detention and other material which were considered for passing the detention order were served to the detenue in English and Telugu languages under his acknowledgement. Further, the contents of those documents were read over and explained to the detenue. At that time, he did not state that he does not know Telugu language except Tamil and he may be supplied with the documents in Tamil language only. In that view, his present allegation that the documents were not supplied to him in Tamil language is unsustainable. In the writ petition the detenue only stated that he is a Tamil speaking person but he did not specifically state that he does not know Telugu language and he cannot read and understand Telugu. The detenue has not submitted any representation seeking documents in Tamil language. The detenue was brought up in Chittoor town and studied upto 7th standard and hence he can read and write Telugu. Therefore, the allegation that he does not know Telugu is an afterthought and unsustainable. Nextly, it is contended that the offences committed by the detenue were occurred between 2019 and 2023 and the detention order was passed on 13.09.2023. There is a proximity between the offences and also the last offence and the date of detention order. The offences are continuous in nature and they effect the society at large. The test of proximity is not a rigid or a mathematical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. The offences are continuous in nature and they effect the society at large. The test of proximity is not a rigid or a mathematical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. The last incident is proximate to the order of detention, thus the earlier incidents cannot be treated as stale and the detention order cannot be set aside on that ground. 6. It is further contended that of the five crimes, the three crimes are of grave nature as they are the offences U/s 307 IPC. Taking the totality of circumstances, the Detaining Authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue was acting detrimental to the maintenance of the public order. Hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit opposing the counter averments of the respondents. In the reply it is stated that the detenue was born in Chennai and he studied upto 5th standard in Chennai and his children were also born in the city of Chennai and he does not know Telugu and English languages. 8. Heard arguments of Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for respondents. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleading in their respective arguments and submitted citations to buttress their contentions. 9. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the detention order is per se unsustainable for not furnishing the detention material to the detenue in the language of Tamil, which language alone the petitioner claims to have knowledge? (2) Whether the detention order is per se illegal for taking the stale and irrelevant material into consideration to order preventive detention? 10. Point No. 1: We have carefully cogitated upon this argument. As per section 8 of the Act 1 of 1986, the Detaining Authority shall communicate to the detenue the grounds of detention within five days from the date of the detention order, so as to afford him the earlier opportunity of making representation against the said order to the Government. This obligation on the part of Detaining Authority is a statutory mandate. Grounds of detention also encompass the other materials that were placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority for consideration and so considered by the latter. This obligation on the part of Detaining Authority is a statutory mandate. Grounds of detention also encompass the other materials that were placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority for consideration and so considered by the latter. Therefore, the duty is caste on the Detaining Authority to furnish the grounds of detention as well as other materials considered for ordering detention to the detenue in the language known to him to facilitate him to make representation to the Government. Law is no more res integra on the effect of non-furnishing of the grounds of detention and other relevant materials considered by the Detaining Authority, in the language known to the detenue: (a) In Farhana Begum v. State of Telangana, (2017) 2 ALT (Cri) 385 the Division Bench of the common High Court of A.P. and Telangana at Hyderabad has held as follows, when the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not furnished to the detenue in his known language Urdu: “28. Though the learned Government Pleader for Home would contend that, as the father of the detenu in the present case had affirmed on oath that the detenu could not read or write even Urdu language, no purpose would have been served by furnishing him translated Urdu copies of all the material documents which formed the basis of the order and the grounds of detention. This Court is not impressed. Irrespective of whether or not the detenu could read Urdu, furnishing him the translated Urdu copies of all the material documents is a must to protect his constitutional right of making an effective representation against the order of detention passed against him. It is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader that the detenu is not subjected to seclusion or isolation and he is not denied visits by his family members and friends. It is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader that the detenu is not subjected to seclusion or isolation and he is not denied visits by his family members and friends. If that be so, there is every possibility that if the documents are furnished to him in his known language, Urdu, the detenu would have the assistance and help of his visiting better-educated family members and friends to discuss and formulate his representation effectively against his detention.” (b) In order dated 15.02.2017 in W.P. No. 30001/2016, another Division Bench of the common High Court, wherein one of us Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was the member, has observed as follows, on the aspect of non-furnishing of relevant materials to the detenue in Malayalam language, which language alone the detenue claim to know: “6. Time and again, the Supreme Court and different High Courts have reminded detaining authorities that the documents relied upon have to be supplied in vernacular language or the language known to the petitioner. 7. The present case is not the first case. We failed to understand why such silly mistake has been committed by the respondent No. 3 in the present case. Moreover, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is totally contrary to the settled law and the provisions of the Act. 8. In case of Powanmmal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1999) 2 SCC 413 , whereby, the Supreme court held that the amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu but also supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenu. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. 9. It cannot be disputed that such type of issues have been coming before the Courts from 1960’s and various High Courts and Supreme Court have passed the orders and gave directions again and again, despite, respondent authorities are committing such type of silly mistakes, which is not acceptable. 10. 9. It cannot be disputed that such type of issues have been coming before the Courts from 1960’s and various High Courts and Supreme Court have passed the orders and gave directions again and again, despite, respondent authorities are committing such type of silly mistakes, which is not acceptable. 10. In addition to above, this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016 passed in W.P No. 23972 of 2016, quashed the detention order therein, issued by the District Collector, Chittoor and held that this is necessary to protect and safeguard the constitutional right of the detenu to make a representation effectively against his detention. Once translated copies of all the relevant material is provided to the detenu, it would be open to him to take the assistance of others, including his family and friends, to formulate an effective representation to the authorities against his detention. Therefore, it is the constitutional duty of the State to make the document available in any language known and understood by the detenu, failing which, it would violate his constitutional right.” (c) In Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 SCC Online Hyd 790 : (2016) 1 ALT 738 (DB) another Division Bench of the common High Court of A.P. and Telangana, inter alia, explicated the need for furnishing the relevant materials in the language understandable by detenue. It observed thus: 132. For the detenu to effectively make his representation against the order of detention, he should have knowledge of the grounds of detention, which are in the nature of a charge setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts which the authorities have attribute to him. In cases where the grounds are several, any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer, serving those on the detenu, would not amount to communicating the grounds. Communication, in this context, must mean bringing home to the detenu effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. [Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (118) 1962 SC 911 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 918] 133. Communication of the grounds of detention in English is not in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravamen of the charge against him, and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. Communication of the grounds of detention in English is not in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravamen of the charge against him, and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is literate. [Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite MANU/SC/0001/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 72 ; Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya MANU/SC/0015/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 157 : 1951 SCR 167 ]. The amplitude of the safeguard, embodied in Article 22(5), extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu, but also to supplying their translation in a script or language which is understandable to the detenu. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds, and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. [Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0013/1999 : (1999) 2 SCC 413 ; Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, MANU/SC/0356/1968 : AIR 1969 SC 43 ; A.C. Razia v. Government of Kerala, MANU/SC/0034/2004 : (2004) 2 SCC 621 ]” Thus, we need not multiply decisions. (d) In W.P. No. 22323/2016, another Division Bench of the common High Court of A.P. and Telangana observed in similar lines as follows: “The petitioner claimed in the affidavit that the detenu is a resident of Chennai, presently residing at Kolkata, and he knows only Tamil language. She further stated that though the detenu can sign in English, he cannot understand anything in English language. This factual aspect is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State. While so, perusal of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, which was also made available to the detenu, reflects that the documents were in English and Telugu languages. No translated copies of these documents were made available to the detenu. This factual aspect is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State. While so, perusal of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, which was also made available to the detenu, reflects that the documents were in English and Telugu languages. No translated copies of these documents were made available to the detenu. Learned Special Government Pleader would point out that on each page of the documents supplied to the detenu, he signed under an endorsement in Tamil to the effect that the contents of the said page were read over and explained to him in Tamil, the language known to him. We are however of the opinion that this would not be sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate of giving an opportunity to the detenu to effectively make a representation against his detention. To give effect to such constitutional right, it is incumbent upon the State to make available translated copies of all documents relied upon by the detaining authority in a language known and understood by the detenu. Merely explaining the contents of such voluminous documents at one go would not ensure that the detenu would remember and recall all that was explained to him in Tamil for the purpose of formulating his representation effectively. Failure to furnish such translated copies of the documents relied upon in a language known and understood by the detenu falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413 and more recently, by this Court in Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad, 2016 (1) ALT 738 (DB). In that view of the matter, the failure on the part of the State to abide by the constitutional mandate vitiates the detention visited upon the petitioner’s son, Markondan Lakshman alias Lakshmanan.” Thus, we need not multiply the judicial pronouncements on the subject issue. The ruling of the above decisions is in clear terms that the materials reiled upon by the Sponsoring Authority and considered by the Detaining Authority for ordering detention shall be furnished to the detenue within the time stipulated under Section 8 of the Act 1 of 1986 in the language known to the detenue to afford opportunity to him to make representation to the Government. 11. 11. In the above backdrop, when the facts of the instant case are perused, it is the specific case of the detenue that he is a Tamilian was born and brought up in the Sate of Tamil Nadu and he studied upto 5th standard in Chennai and he married a Tamilian at Chennai and he does not know Telugu and English, however the grounds of detention and other materials were supplied to him in Telugu and English which languages he is not familiar with and therefore he was deprived of a valuable opportunity to make an effective representation to the Government as well as Advisory Board. To show that he is a Tamilian he produced certain material such as (1) the ration card issued by the Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Anna Nagar which contains the name of the detenue and his other family members (2) Voter ID Card of the detenue issued by the Election Commission of India showing that he is a voter in respect of Thiru-vi-ka-nagar, Chennai (3)School Record Sheet issued by Corporation Middle School, Thana Mandal, which shows that the detenue was a student in that school studied class 1 to 4th standard (4) Wedding Invitation Card showing that the marriage of the detenue with the petitioner was held on 20.11.2005 at Chennai and (5) Birth Certificates of the Detenue’s daughters issued by Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Thiruthani Municipality. The above documents would prima facie show that the detenue is a Tamilian and his roots are ingrained in Tamil Nadu. His school certificate shows that he studied upto 4th Class in Tamil at Tamil Nadu. No doubt the petitioner has not filed any other material showing whether the detenue prosecuted further studies and learned other languages like English, Telugu etc. No material was also filed to show when he migrated to Chittoor and how he was eking out his livelihood there. However petitioner’s claim is that the detenue knows only Tamil and he does not know other languages. Be that as it may, the claim of the respondents is that the detenue and his family members migrated to Chittoor above 30 years back and he studied upto 7th standard and he can read and write Telugu. However, respondents have not produced any material showing that the detenue prosecuted his studies in Chittoor and he is acquainted with other languages, particularly Telugu and English. However, respondents have not produced any material showing that the detenue prosecuted his studies in Chittoor and he is acquainted with other languages, particularly Telugu and English. Needless to emphasize that since it is the contention of the respondents that he knows Telugu and English apart from Tamil, the burden is on them to establish the said fact to justify their action of supplying the detention materials in Telugu and English languages as the respondents failed to discharge their burden and the petitioner produced material which prima facie show that the detenue knows only Tamil, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. The materials filed along with counter shows that the detenue was supplied the detention material in Telugu and English languages under the acknowledgement of the detenue in English. In this context, the contention of learned Special Government Pleader that since the detenue received those materials without any protest and subscribed his signature, he now cannot contend that the materials were not supplied in Tamil cannot be accepted. When the petitioner produced material to show that the detenue knows only Tamil and the respondents failed to buttress their stand that he knows Telugu and English, his signing on the material cannot be considered as a factor to discard the argument of the petitioner. Thus in essence, the respondents have failed to furnish the materials in the language known to the detenue and thereby he was deprived of valuable opportunity to make an effective representation to the Government and Advisory Board. This serious procedural infirmity in our view vitiated the detention order and therefore the detenue deserves to be released. In that view, the other grounds raised by the petitioner need not be delved. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the detention order in REV-CSECOPDL (PRC)/6/2023-MAGL4, dated 13.09.2023 passed by 2nd respondent-The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District is hereby set aside and the detenue namely M. Saravana, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases. No costs. 13. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.