Veerapandian and Tamilvanan vs State

The petitioners in both the petitions are the friend of the detenus, who were declared as ""Goonda"" under the Act 14 of 1982.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Though in the petition several grounds have been raised, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners even at the foremost points out that

what is stated in para 8 in English version of grounds of detention is not in accordance with Section 10 of the Act 14 of 1982. In order to

appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer Section 10 of Act 14 of 1982 which reads as under:

Reference to advisory Board: In every case where a detention order has been made under the Act, the State Government shall, within three

weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by them u/s 9, the grounds on which

the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in the case where the order has been made

by an Officer, also the report by such officer under sub-section (3)of Section 3.

The above referred section mandates the State Government to place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made

and the representation if any, made by the person affected by the order. It makes it clear from the above Section that the State Government after

approving the order of detention has to perform with obligations. It is not sufficient to place before the Advisory Board the grounds of detention

but, in addition to that representation already sent by the detenu should be placed before the Advisory Board. As rightly argued by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, perusal of para 8 of the grounds of detention does not satisfy the above requirement. In similar circumstance a Division

Bench of this Court in Devarajan Vs. The State and another, while considering the very same provision has held that it is not sufficient to place

before the Advisory Board the grounds of detention but, in addition to that representation already sent by the detenu should be placed before the

Advisory Board. The said mandate has to be reflected both in the English and Tamil version. The same is lacking in our case. It is not seriously

disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Inasmuch as the grounds of detention does not satisfy the mandatory requirement as

provided u/s 10 of the Act, we hold that the detention order vitiates.

Under these circumstances, the impugned orders of detention are set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed. The detenus are

directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.