Judgment : K. M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the detention order dated 27/7/1992 and set him at liberty. The detenu came to the adverse notice as bootlegger in view of the 3 cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case by the District Magistrate and Collector, Madurai, the 2nd respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 19b2 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/82) read with orders issued by the Govt. in G. O. Ms. No. 25, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18th January 1982 under subsection (2) of section 2 of the said Act, and subsequently amended by G. O. Ms. No. 69, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated. 18/4/1992, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The facts which lead to the passing of the order of detention have been stated in detail in the order of detention and they were duly served to the detenu and hence we do not propose to reiterate the same Once again in this order. ( 2 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of detention on various grounds, he confined his arguments to the ground viz. , as per the Chemical analysis report the percentage of atropine is found only 0. 58 mg (W/n) and the doctor would state that if a person consumed arrack mixed with such percentage of atropine that would cause danger to the human life. But he would state further that if only large quantity is consumed that would cause danger, to human life. The opinion of the doctor is one in general whereas in the grounds of detention the opinion as referred to is quite different and such an order is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind in respect of the very vital question as to whether the detenu is a bootlegger. The opinion of the doctor is one in general whereas in the grounds of detention the opinion as referred to is quite different and such an order is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind in respect of the very vital question as to whether the detenu is a bootlegger. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the statement recorded from the Dr. Mani Mohan, M. D. , Cumbum Govt. Hospital, by the Inspector wherein he stated that he perused the report of the Chemical Examiner and issued a certificate stating that if anybody consumes J. D. arrack mixed with atropine of 0. 58 mg WIN that would cause giddiness, vomiting, congestion of eyes and suffocation etc. , and if immediate treatment is not given it would cause danger to the life. He has also stated that if anybody consumes excess quantity than the required, it would cause danger to the human life. But he has not stated what is meant by excess quantity. In the grounds of detention we have found while considering the statement of the doctor has been stated as follows: During the course of investigation, Dr. Mani Mohan, MD. , Asst Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Cumbum was examined by the Inspector of Police, P. E. W. , Cumbum. He has stated that the signs and symptoms as experienced by Thiru. Raju Chettiar are due to consumption of I. D. arrack mixed with Atropine poison and if treatment is not given immediately, it will produce fatal complications. He has also stated that vomiting, giddiness and congestion of eyes and suffocation are due to the mixing of Atropine in the I. D. arrack. It is nowhere stated that the doctor has given opinion with reference to the concerned arrack mixed with atropine of 0. 58 mg per cent W/n. Further the statement of the doctor that if a person consumes excess quantity than the required it would cause danger to the human life, is not referred to, in the grounds of detention. So it is clear that the statement of the doctor has not been properly considered and it is clearly non-application of mind by the detaining authority in deciding wherever contraband sold by the detenu is dangerous to the human life so as to characterise him as a bootlegger. So it is clear that the statement of the doctor has not been properly considered and it is clearly non-application of mind by the detaining authority in deciding wherever contraband sold by the detenu is dangerous to the human life so as to characterise him as a bootlegger. ( 3 ) IT has to be noted in this case the percentage of atropine mixed in the I. D. arrack is also negligible one and further the findings of the doctor is also general in character and bas not view any definite opinion thereby the consumption of the I. D. arrack mixed with 0. 58 mg WIN would prove to be fatal. But the finding is to the effect only if excess quantity is taken it will prove fatal and while so he has not also mentioned what is he meant by excess quantity. In these circumstances, no detention can be made by characterisiong the petitioner detenu as a bootlegger. (Vide Rajendra v. State of Tamil Nadul and Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu2 ). Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the medical testimony and the non application of mind by the detaining authority the impugned order of detention is vitiated and liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is hereby quashed and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.