Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Though more than one grounds have been raised to challenge the impugned order, the following two grounds have been argued before us:-

(i) The Petitioner says and states that he is a person and native of Tamil Nadu State. The Petitioners mother tongue is Tamil. the Petitioner is an illeterate, he is unable to read, write and speak any other language other than Tamil. Even though he is living at Bombay for couple of years with his family members he being illeterate is unable to understand English and Hindi language. The Petitioner says and submits that he is able to understand the vernacular mother tongue Tamil and knows Tamil script the petitioner says and submits that he has been furnished with the grounds of detention and all other documents of the compilation in English and Marathi language alongwith their Hindi translation, which languages are not known to the Petitioner. Law is well settled that a Petitioner should be furnished with grounds and documents in a language known to the Petitioner. In this case, since the Petitioneer has not been furnished Tamil translation of the grounds and documents inspite of his request made at the time of service. This amounts to non-communication of grounds of detention. the Petitioner further says and submits that as a result of non-furnishing Tamil translation he is deprived from making any effective representation to competent authorities at the earliest. The right of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is vitiated. The order of detention is illegal and bad-in-law, ought to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner also submits that as issued in every case, the sponsoring authority has not read out 332 pages or the grounds of detention nor explained any thing to the petitioner at the time of service and merely asked the Petitioner to put his signature.

3. It was submitted by Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the detenu that the detenu is a Tamilian illeterate, cannot read or write any script of any indian language, cannot understand any language other than tamil and Page 3401 therefore it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to provide the impugned order, the grounds in support thereof as well as the documents relied upon with tamil translation alongwith the original english copies. As per the learned Counsel providing Hindi translation could not be of any use in the instant case inasmuch as the detenu did not know reading or writing of Hindi and he is not familiar with the said language, except Tamil. This failure on the part of the Detaining Authority has vitiated the the impugned order, and when the order was served on 1.1.2006 the detenu demanded translated copies in Tamil language, it could have been possible for the Detaining Authority to provide translated copies within few days from the execution of the detention order, but the Detaining Authority did not do so and this failure has resulted in the impugned order being void ab-initio on account of its failure to meet the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution as well as the non-communication of the order as contemplated under Section 8 of the MPDA Act. Mr. Tripathi, in support of this ground has relied upon the following judgments:-

9. On the touch-stone of the above referred legal position, let us examine the present detenus case. Though he claims to be illeterate and his mother tongue is tamil, admittedly, he entered Mumbai around the age of 15 years. It has come in his statement before the police that he was at Ludhiana, Punjab and studying in Hindi Medium School in II Standard before he came to Mumbai. In his statement recorded on 1.1.2006 by the police officer who served the detention order on him, he stated that he was staying in Mumbai for more than 20 years in the locality surrounded by Maharashtrians and he as well as his family members had knowledge of Hindi and they were able to speak Hindi in good manner. He also stated that his friends being Hindi speaking he talks to them to the maximum extent in Hindi language. He filed representation before the Advisory Board which was drafted by his lawyer and he signed in english. It was contended by Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the detenu that the detenu does not know english as well, though he signed the representation in english. We may accept this reasoning having regard to the way the detenu has signed the representation, but, that does not mean that he does not understand Hindi language.