The object behind the requirement of furnishing translated copies of the documents in the language known to the detenu is to enable him to know the contents thereof in order to make an effective representation. In the instant case, admittedly, the only language known to the detenu is Kannada and except the detention order all other material is either in Telugu or in English, the languages with which the detenu is not acquainted. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, quashed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI                

WRIT PETITION No.37729 of 2016  

14-06-2017

Ruksana Parveen W/o Shaik Abdul Rehman ..... Petitioner

The State of A.P. reptd by its Chief Secretary General Administration Department, Velagapudi and three others .....Responden

Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande
                        for Mr.Vikas Joshi
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.S.Surya Prakash
                             Special Government Pleader
                                                                       
<Gist:

>Head Note:

                                                                       
?  Cases Referred:
  (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531
  (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 413
  2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 966

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        
AND
HONBLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI      

WRIT PETITION No.37729 of 2016  

Date:14.6.2017

The Court made the following:


ORDER: (per Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

        This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Writ of Habeas
Corpus directing the respondents to release Shaik Abdul
Rehaman @ Abdul Rahimin @ Rehaman @ Rahiman      
(hereinafter referred to as the detenu) after quashing
proceedings, vide Ref.No.C1/917/M/2016,  dated 13.10.2016, of
respondent No.2 and G.O.Rt.No.2173, General Administration
(Law and Order) Department, dated 22.10.2016, of respondent
No.1.
        The only ground urged at the hearing is that the detenu,
who studied only up to 4th Class, was not supplied with
translated copies of the material relied upon by the respondents
in the grounds of detention, except the detention order, into the
language known to him, i.e., Kannada, as a result of which,
serious prejudice has been caused to him. In support of this plea,
Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria V. Union of India and
Powanammal V. State of T.N.  and the judgment of this Court
in Renu Kumar Bagalakoti V. State of Telangana and
others .
     In Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria (1st supra), the Supreme
Court accepted the plea of the detenu that requirement of
Article-22(5) of the Constitution of India is that the detaining
authority should not only communicate to the detenu the
grounds on which the order of detention has been made, but
also furnish all the statements and documents relied upon in the
grounds of detention within the stipulated time.
       In Powanammal (2nd supra), the Supreme Court held
that non-supply of copies of documents relied on in the grounds
of detention in the language known to the detenu is fatal and the
detention order is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
      In Renu Kumar Bagalakoti (3rd supra), a Division Bench
of this Court speaking through one of us (CVNR, J) held that
non-supply of translated copies of material, on which reliance
was placed in the order of detention, vitiates the same.
     The object behind the requirement of furnishing translated
copies of the documents in the language known to the detenu is
to enable him to know the contents thereof in order to make an
effective representation.
        In the instant case, admittedly, the only language known to
the detenu is Kannada and except the detention order all other
material is either in Telugu or in English, the languages with
which the detenu is not acquainted. Therefore, the impugned
order of detention is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly,
quashed.
        The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
        As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,
WPMP.No.52858 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for interim
relief is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________    
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY      
_______________  
JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI  
14th June 2017