ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 20.01.2006, detaining him as ‘Bootlegger’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the representation dated 21.02.2006, the detenu has requested the first respondent to furnish a copy of the proceedings relating to Crime No. 788 of 2005. According to the learned Counsel, after considering the said representation, the Government in their letter dated 08.03.2006 addressed to the detenu, marking copy to the Detaining Authority as well as the Sponsoring Authority agreed to supply the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such order by the Government, copy of the proceedings relating to Crime No. 788 of 2005 have not been supplied, which vitiates the detention order.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in (2000-1-LW (Crl.) 27) P.Muthuswamy v. State, represented by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and another and an unreported Judgment passed in H.C.P. No. 194 of 2004 dated 20.04.2004.
5. In those decisions, as in the case on hand, based on the representation of the detenu, the State Government agreed to supply the documents claimed by the detenu. However, in spite of the Government’s direction, the documents were not supplied. Considering the said aspect, the Division Bench found that the detention order passed is illegal, as that would amount to refusal of an opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition made in those decisions and it is not brought to our notice that any appeal is filed against those decisions.
6. In view of the legal provision and also taking note of the fact that the Crime No. 788 of 2005 has been referred in remand requisition and of the fact that the Government itself agreed to supply the copy of the same and failure to supply the same vitiate the detention order since the detenu lost his remedy to make effective representation, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on such ground and is accordingly quashed.
7. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.