V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

In this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Kancheepuram branding one Murugan @ Pool Murugan to be a bootlegger and directing his detention under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. There are as many as seven adverse cases reported against the detenu and the incident dated 22.8.2002 has been relied upon as the ground case wherein the said detenu was found in possession of 35 litres of poisonous liquor. It is pointed out that this liquor was found to be mixed with Atropine to the extent of 9.17% mg W/V. On this basis, the order is passed against the detenu.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Venkatasubramanian firstly contends that the representation sent by the detenus wife has not been independently considered and has been considered only after the order was passed by the Advisory Board on 3.10.2002. Unfortunately for the petitioner, there is nothing on record to suggest that before rejecting the representation of the petitioner. any such order was taken into consideration. In fact, this point is not even raised in the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The contention is therefore obviously incorrect and rejected.

4. Secondly, the learned counsel suggests that there is a difference in the English version and the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, whereas the English version shows the detenu to be the inmate of Central Jail, Puzhal, the Tamil version shows him to be the inmate of Central Jail, Chennai. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of this, the wife of the detenu could not take a proper notice of the detention and could not make the representation in time.

5. As against this, the learned Additional Public prosecutor shows us an endorsement made by the wife on 2.9.2002 wherein it is specifically informed to her that her husband is put as an inmate of the Central Jail, Chennai. If this is so, obviously the plea raised in the petition that she was confused and did not know as to where her husband was is obviously an incorrect plea. In our opinion, no such prejudice has been caused because of this alleged discrepancy in the Tamil and English versions of the grounds of detention.

6. The learned counsel in addition to this also suggested that the representation was rejected by the Government without even calling from the Detaining Authority the parawise remarks. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has shown us the chart which shows that the remarks were called by the Government on 23.9.2002, the communication reached the Detaining Authority on 24.9.2002 and on 26.9.2002 he submitted his parawise remarks. In that view the contention is obviously incorrect.

7. In short, there are no merits in this petition and it is dismissed.