Judgment : One Dhanabakiyam, the mother of the detenu by name Karuna alias Karunakaran filed the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to quash the order of detention dated 22.8.1989 and set at liberty the detenu. 2. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with a view to prevent him from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. The detenu came to adverse notice as a habitual offender in view of the four instant cases referred to in the preamble to the grounds of detention, and on the basis of the ground case dated 15.7.1989, he was detained. Since the details of those cases have been elaborately stated in the grounds of detention which had been served upon the detenu, they need not be restated in this order. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of detention on many grounds he has confined his arguments only to ground No.(F) wherein it is claimed that the question whether the detenu is likely to come out on bail or has moved a bail application has not been considered properly by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. In substance, it is contended that there was no compelling necessity for passing the order of detention. 5. We have gone through the grounds of detention and it is specifically stated therein that the detaining authority was aware, that the detenu was on remand on the date when the order was passed and that he would be proceeded with under the normal law. But we do not find any indication in the order that the detaining authority had considered the question of likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail or about his various antecedent activities which show that the petitioner would indulge in activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and as such there was a compelling necessity. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner drew out attention to the latest Supreme Court decision reported in Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2027 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that since there is absolutely no indication in the grounds of detention that the detaining authorities have considered the question of the likelihood of the release of the petitioner on bail or about the compelling necessity for passing the order of detention, it is liable to be quashed. The said ratio in all fours would apply to the facts of this case. In the instant case also, the detaining authority has failed to consider the compelling necessity for passing the order of detention and hence the said order is vitiated. 6. The result is, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is hereby quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty if he is not required in connection with any other case.