Ravi, 28, V.N. Doss Road, Mount Road, Chennai v. Tiruchirapalli City

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDate : 01..09..2008Coram :The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Prabha SridevanandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Periya KaruppiahHabeas Corpus Petition No: 681 of 2008Ravi, 28, V.N. Doss Road, Mount Road, Chennai. ... Petitioner/brother in law of the Detenu-vs-1. The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City. 3. The Addl. Secretary tothe Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Room No: 270, Krish Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001.... Respondents.. .. ..Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for therecords in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2ndrespondent dated 15.04.2008 in C.P.O./T.C./I.S./B.M./D.O. No: 3/2008against petitioner's uncle Ganesan son of Thangavel, aged about45 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Trichy, and set aside https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before thisHon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : M/s. V.Parthiban For resp. 1 & 2 : Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor... .. .. O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by V. Periyakaruppiah, J.) This petition has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenuT.Ganesan, S/o.Thangavel, seeking for quashment of the detentionorder dated 15.04.2008 branding the detenu as a “Black Marketeer”under the provisions of the Prevenction of Black Marketing andMaintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Thepetitioner had raised various grounds in the writ petition which areas follows :-(i) There is no compelling necessity to pass the order ofdetention against the detenu ;(ii) The detaining authority had exceeded his jurisdiction andhad passed the order of detention without any power.(iii) The Tamil translation supplied to the detenu ismisleading and contrary to the original English version and when thedetenu had demanded for the correct translation, the same was notsupplied to him which caused prejudice to him as he was preventedfrom making an effective representation ;(iv) Some documents like the bail petition, etc. were in thelanguage not known to the detenu and even after demand theauthorities have failed to supply the same ;(v) The detaining authority had relied on the previousdetention order passed against the detenu on 15.02.2007, but copiesof those documents were not served on the detenu and,(vi) The representation made on behalf of the detenu dated22.04.2008 had not been considered by the authorities.2. The 2nd respondent had filed a counter affidavit retractingall the allegations made in the affidavit. He would state that thedetenu is in the habit of transporting and hoarding rice meant forPublic Distribution System and selling the same in Black Market forpecuniary gain; that it is within his jurisdiction that he has passedthe detention order; that there is no variation or misleading in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ translation; that the previous detention order is only a referreddocument and not relied upon document and however, the same has beenprovided to the detenu at page Nos: 42 to 45 in the booklet and thatthe representation of the detenu has been considered expeditiouslyand that there was no delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in hisarguments that though the petitioner has raised many grounds in thewrit petition, he would like to highlight only the following : The Tamil translation of the grounds of detention was misleadingand was contrary to the English version. At paragraph 6 of thegrounds of detention it is stated that, " ......... It is further informed that he has a rightto make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board,Madras High Court Campus, Chennai through theSuperintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Anyrepresentation that is made by him to the Government will beduly considered by the Government and will also be placedbefore the Advisory Board along with his case details forconsideration Under Section 10 of the Prevention of BlackMarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act, 1980. "This portion has been translated in Tamil in a different manner whichwould not give the correct meaning. The Tamil translation of theaforesaid portion is as follows : " nkYk; mth; mwpt[iu FGkj;jpw;F. jiyth;. mwpt[iu FGkk;.brd;id cah; ePjpkd;w tshfk;. brd;id vd;w Kfthpapl;Lfz;fhzpg;ghsh;. jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp. kj;jparpiw K:ykhf KiwaPL bra;Jbfhs;s chpik cz;L vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwhh;/ mt;thW mtuhy;muRf;F bra;ag;gLk; ve;j xU KiwaPLk; murhy; ghprPypf;fg;gl;L. 1980 k;Mz;ila fs;sr;re;ij jLg;g[ kw;Wk; mj;jpahtrpag; gz;l';fs; tH';fy;guhkhpg;g[[r; rl;lk; 7-1980/ 10 tJ gphptpd; fPH; mwpt[iu FGkj;jpd;Kd;ghf tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs; ghprPyidf;F itf;fg;gLk;/Learned counsel would submit in his argument that in a similarcircumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in a decision reportedin 1999 (2) C.T.C. 175 [Devarajan vs. State, etc. and another], hadcome to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the Governmentto furnish the correct and true translated version of the detentionorder to the detenu would vitiate the order of detention. He hadalso drawn our attention to the judgment of the Full Bench of thisCourt reported 2000 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 34 [ Mahamani vs. The Union ofIndia, etc. and others ], in which it has been held that the Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ term "tHf;F@ will not include within its meaning the term"representation" and it would only mean "the case". According to thelearned counsel for the petitioner the Tamil translation of thegrounds of detention supplied to the detenu exactly contains the verysame defect and therefore, on the basis of the decisions rendered inthe above said judgments, the detention order passed against thedetenu has to be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor would submit in hisargument that the translation of the grounds of detention wasproperly done and the Tamil version is exactly the same as that ofthe English version and that the consolidated reading of the portionof the passage referred to above by the learned counsel for thepetitioner would mean the same thing mentioned in the English orderof detention and, therefore, there is no variation or a misleadingstatement which would attract the proposition laid down in thedecision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the argumentsadvanced on either side. The only ground urged by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that the Tamil translation of thegrounds of detention from English to Tamil was not done properly.At paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention it is stated as follows : " ......... It is further informed that he has a rightto make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board,Madras High Court Campus, Chennai through theSuperintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Anyrepresentation that is made by him to the Government will beduly considered by the Government and will also be placedbefore the Advisory Board along with his case details forconsideration under Section 10 of the Prevention of BlackMarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act, 1980. "The translation version of the above portion in Tamil would readthus, " nkYk; mth; mwpt[iu FGkj;jpw;F. jiyth;. mwpt[iu FGkk;.brd;id cah; ePjpkd;w tshfk;. brd;id vd;w Kfthpapl;Lfz;fhzpg;ghsh;. jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp. kj;jparpiw K:ykhf KiwaPL bra;Jbfhs;s chpik cz;L vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwhh;/ mt;thW mtuhy;muRf;F bra;ag;gLk; ve;j xU KiwaPLk; murhy; ghprPypf;fg;gl;L. 1980 k;Mz;ila fs;sr;re;ij jLg;g[ kw;Wk; mj;jpahtrpag; gz;l';fs; tH';fy;guhkhpg;g[[r; rl;lk; 7-1980/ 10 tJ gphptpd; fPH; mwpt[iu FGkj;jpd;Kd;ghf tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs; ghprPyidf;F itf;fg;gLk;/" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Englishversion, it is stated that the representation made to the AdvisoryBoard will be considered by the Government and it will be placedbefore the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Prevention of BlackMarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980, along with the case details for the purpose of deciding therepresentation. Whereas, the Tamil translation said to have beendone so would mean that the representation will be considered by theGovernment and the case documents will be placed before the AdvisoryBoard. In the decision reported in 1999 (2) C.T.C. 175 [Devarajanvs. State, etc. and another], cited supra, a Division Bench of thisCourt held that, " 12. When once we hold that the State is underobligation to inform the detenu that his representationwill be placed before the Advisory Board, the furtherquestion that would arise is, whether the non-furnishing ofthe correct Tamil version of the detention order would befatal.13. The right of the detenu to make representation tothe authorities is guaranteed under Article 22 of theConstitution of India. The representation sent by thedetenu to the State Government will have to be placedbefore the Advisory Board apart from the grounds relied onby the Government for detaining the detenu. Therefore,when the detenu was not informed that his representationwill be placed before the Advisory Board, it wouldcertainly amount to denial of his right. The contention ofthe respondent is that the fact that the representationmade by the detenu to the Government will be placed beforethe Advisory Board is not mentioned in the Tamil versionwill not affect the order. We are unable to accept theabove contention of the respondent. When it is clearlystated in the English version that the representation madeby the detenu will be considered by the Government and thatit will be placed before the Advisory Board, the detenumust be informed about the said fact in the language knownto him. As the detenu was not informed that hisrepresentation will be placed before the Advisory Board inthe language known to him, it cannot be said that the orderof detention is not vitiated." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Similarly, paragraphs 29 and 40 of the judgment of the FullBench of this Court reported in 2000 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 34, cited supra,would run as follows :" 29. It is well settled that in interpreting or constructing the words in the document, importance should beattached tot he plain meaning of the particular word, wherethe language is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot addsome other word to give the required meaning. When it isclearly stated in the English version that therepresentation will be considered by the Government and willalso be placed before the Advisory Board, the Tamil versionof the grounds of detention should also contain the samemeaning. In the English version, as assurance has been giventhat the representation sent by the detenu, will beconsidered by the Government and will be placed before theAdvisory Board. Therefore, such assurance has to be givento the detenu in the language known and understood by him.For the reasons stated above, we hold that the word "tHf;F@occurring in the Tamil version of the grounds of detentionwould not include "representation". As placing the case ofthe detenu before the Advisory Board and placing therepresentation if any received by the Government areindependent of each other, the contention of the State thatthe word "tHf;F" (case) include representation cannot beaccepted. ........................40. In the result, the reference is answered asfollows:- (1) Placing the case of the detenu before the AdvisoryBoard and placing the representation are two separateobligations and that they are independent of each other.(2) It is obligatory on the part of the State to placethe representation along with its case while makingreference to the Advisory Board.(3) The word "tHf;F" (Case) does not includerepresentation (KiwaPL ) (4) The question whether or not the detenu wasprejudiced by omission of the word in the Tamil version isleft open to be decided by the respective Division Benches. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The dictum laid down by this Court in the Full Benchdecision is that the word "tHf;F" will not mean and include the"representation". Therefore, the Tamil translation which mentionedonly "tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs;" cannot be taken to mean "the casedetails". The actual meaning of the words "the case details" wouldbe "tHf;F tptu';fs;". Similarly, the exact translation of the words"tHf;F bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs;" is "case documents". The meaning in theEnglish version of the grounds of detention would go to show that therepresentation submitted by the detenu will be considered by theGovernment and it will be placed before the Advisory Board along withthe case details for consideration under Section 10 of the Act,whereas the Tamil version corresponding to the aforesaid passagewould mean that, "the case documents will be placed by the Governmentbefore the Advisory Board after the representation had been submittedbefore it." Thus it is clear that the translated grounds ofdetention in Tamil gives a different meaning from the Englishversion. Therefore, the Full Bench decision cited supra is squarelyapplicable to the facts of the present case. The term " tHf;FMtz';fs; " as mentioned in the Tamil translation would not include"representation". Therefore, the aforesaid passage in the grounds ofdetention in the English version was not translated properly intoTamil so as to be understood by the detenu for putting forth aneffective representation. Under these circumstances, according tothe dictum laid down by the Full Bench of our High Court, thedetention order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same isquashed. In the result, the Habeas corpus Petition is allowed. Thedetenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he isotherwise required in connection with any case.Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrargpTo1. The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City. 3. The Addl. Secretary tothe Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Room No: 270, Krish Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001. 4.The Superintendent of Central Prison ,Trichy5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (law & order)Fort.St.George Chennai.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No: 681 of 2008 NSM(CO)BK(20/10/2008)