Judgment :- K. M. NATARAJAN, J. This writ petition is filed by one Mrs. M. Vanaja, mother of the detenu by name Ravi alias Dorai alias Poonaikannan Ravi, for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention passed against her son on 22-8-1989 and set him at liberty. 2. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of Section 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) on 22-8-1989 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order was passed after the detenu came to the adverse notice of the detaining authority as a goonda in view of the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. It is needless to restate the details of those cases as the same have been stated in detail in the grounds of detention, which was served on the detenu, especially in view of the defence taken in this case. 3. Though it was specifically stated by a Bench of this Court on 14-3-1990 while granting three weeks' time for filing a counter that whether a counter is filed or not, the writ petition will be taken up for final disposal on the expiry of three weeks, no counter is filed even on this day and the allegations stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are not repudiated. 4. Though the petitioner challenged the order of detention on various grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to only one ground, namely, that the detenu was already on remand at the time of passing of the order of detention and there was no compelling necessity to pass an order of detention and the detaining authority has not considered the relevant factors which are necessary for arriving at the satisfaction of the compelling necessity and as such the order is vitiated. The petitioner has taken it as ground No. F. in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The petitioner has taken it as ground No. F. in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. According to the learned counsel, the detenu was involved in an offence under section 307, I.P.C. which is triable by a Court of Session and in this case the detenu has not moved any bail application before the Sessions Court or in the High Court in connection with Crime No. 1713 of 1989 and further there is no indication in the order that the detenu might be released or that the possibility of his release was taken into consideration by the detaining authority properly and seriously before passing the order of detention. Further, the first respondent as well as the third respondent had not taken into account the likelihood of the detenu indulging the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since the detenu is already in remand. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1989 AIR(SC) 2027, 1989 (3) Crimes 173, 1989 CAR 330, 1989 (95) CrLJ 2190, 1989 CrLR(SC) 697, 1989 (24) ECR 651, 1989 (3) JT 478 , 1989 (2) Scale 363 , 1989 (4) SCC 418 , 1989 SCC(Cr) 732, 1989 (3) SCR 901 , 1985 Supp(SCC) 144 and also to a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 12957 of 1989 (Mrs. Dhanabagyam v. State) to which one of us (K. M. Natarajan, J.) was a party wherein a similar question was considered. No. 12957 of 1989 (Mrs. Dhanabagyam v. State) to which one of us (K. M. Natarajan, J.) was a party wherein a similar question was considered. In the instant case, applying the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1989 AIR(SC) 2027, 1989 (3) Crimes 173, 1989 CAR 330, 1989 (95) CrLJ 2190, 1989 CrLR(SC) 697, 1989 (24) ECR 651, 1989 (3) JT 478 , 1989 (2) Scale 363 , 1989 (4) SCC 418 , 1989 SCC(Cr) 732, 1989 (3) SCR 901 , 1985 Supp(SCC) 144, we find that though the detaining authority has specifically stated that he was aware on the date when the order was passed that the detenu was on remand and he was in custody, yet he has not considered the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail or about the detenu indulging in such activities which will be prejudicial to the public order in future in view of his antecedent activities and about the compelling necessity. As such we are of the view that the continued detention of the detenu is vitiated and the impugned orders liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.