JUDGMENT S.A.Kader, J. : This writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issurance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against him by the second respondent-Commissioner of Police, Madras City on 8.6.1987 under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act (XIV of 1982) with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The main ground of attack levelled by Mr.Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was on bail on the date of passing of the order of detention on 8.6.1987 and the footnote in the order of detention and in the grounds of detention for service on the detenu through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras is not correct and has been mechanically made without proper application of the mind of the detaining authority and the order of detention is vitiated thereby. In reply thereto the second respondent has come forward with this explanation in Para 6 of the counter affidavit. “With reference to the ground (d) of paragraph 2 of the affidavit it is submitted that in the ground case the detenu was arrested on 29.4.1987 at the spot where he was found selling illicitly distilled arrack and he was remanded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri on the same and he was later released on bail. The order of detention was passed subseqently on 8.6.1987 and hence the warrant of arrest was issued along with the detention order. The detenu was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Redhills on 9.6.1987 to execute the warrant issued in the detention case and he was produced before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras. Hence the fact that the detention order to be served through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras is not wrong.” 3. We have perused the file produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. The order of detention both in English and in Tamil and the grounds of detention in both the languages and the foot-note giving the address of the detenu and service through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras-3. In the detention orders there is also the endorsement for service of the order on the detenu. The order of detention both in English and in Tamil and the grounds of detention in both the languages and the foot-note giving the address of the detenu and service through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras-3. In the detention orders there is also the endorsement for service of the order on the detenu. There is absolutely nothing to show that these orders or the grounds of detention were served through the Superintendent, Central Prison. We are convinced that these orders and the grounds have been served upon the detenu outside the prison. The foot-note in the orders for service on the detenu through the Superintendent, Central Prison has been incorporated at a time when the detenu was actually on bail, which leaves no room for doubt that the order of detention has been mechanically signed. A Bench of this Court in Manjula v. State of Tamil Nadu Manjula v. State of Tamil Nadu 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 512, has under similar circumstances come to the conclusion that the footnote should have been typed and cyclostyled on 16.3.1987 probably simultaneously with the detention order and the learned Judge had no other go except to hold that the detaining authority was not quite sure as to whether the detenu was inside the prison or not and that he has mechanically signed the same. The order of detention was, therefore, set aside. We respectfully agree with the said view. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the order of detention passed against the petitioner has to be set aside. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed, the order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.