Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. In between 20-8-1992 and 2-3-1994, one Raju (petitioner) revelled in transactions of pick-pocketing on six occasions at various places in the Metropolitan City Madras, which resulted in cases being registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code by the concerned jurisdictional police stations and recovery being effected of the money pickpocketed either in full or partial. Investigation in most of the cases had been completed and final reports filed and the trial in those cases is not yet over. 2. While so, the occurrence in the ground case took place on 6-3-1994 at about 05-00 hours at Doveton bus stop. (a) One Kothandaraman working in M/s. Drakes (India) Limited situate at Avadi, Madras was waiting at Deveton Bus Stop for the Bus No. 34-J to go to New Washermenpet and when the said bus came and halted at the bus stop, he was getting into the bus. At that time, he noticed the petitioner picking his right side pant packet. He immediately caught hold of him at the spot. Meanwhile, the bus left the spot. The petitioner tried to escape from there. When the victim held the culprit firmly, the culprit, in turn, removed a knife from his hip and attempted to stab him. The victim warded off the attack and in such process, the stab fell on his left hand and caused bleeding injury. The culprit, wriggling out of his clutches, proceeded towards Choolai. The victim raised a hue and cry, "Thief : Thief : Catch hold of him." So saying, he chased him. (b) One Nagappan and another Kumar, who were at the spot, heard his cry and tried to apprehend the culprit. The culprit, however, terrorised them at the point of knife, by uttering vulgar words, besides stating. "If anyone dared to come near him, he will stab him with his knife" and so saying, he also took up gravel stones from the roadside and pelted the same against them. The stones so pelted fell on all directions and consequently, public, who were waiting at the nearby bus stop, ran for safer places, out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The public who were doing business at the platform, noticing the atrocious activities of the culprit, left the spot abandoning all their belongings. The stones so pelted fell on all directions and consequently, public, who were waiting at the nearby bus stop, ran for safer places, out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The public who were doing business at the platform, noticing the atrocious activities of the culprit, left the spot abandoning all their belongings. The public who were proceeding in their vehicles could not move further, resulting in traffic dislocation. The men and women proceeding to the nearby market ran hither and thither for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives. Thus, he had created a terror and panic at the spot, in the sense of affecting the tempo of life of the society(c) The Police Constables, namely, Rajamani, Parameswaran, and Veeramani attached to G. 1 Vepery Police Station, who were on patrol duty, however, overpowered him at the spot. The knife and the stolen property were recovered. Later he was taken to G. 1 Vepery Police Station. On a complaint given by the victim, Kothandaraman, the Sub Inspector of Police at the said police station registered a case an Cr. No. 404 of 1994 ander Section 379, read with Sections 397, 336 and 506 Part II I.P.C. The injured Kothandaraman had been sent to Government Hospital for treatment. Further investigation of the case was taken up by the Inpsector of Police (Crimes), G. 1 Vepery Police Station. The apprehended culprit had been produced before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and he was later lodged at Central Prison, Madras, as a remand prisoner. (d) Subsequently, the ollow up action had been taken up by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, Madras-8 (second respondent), who in exercise of the powers conferred 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, clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings No. 71/94 dated 9-3-1994, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as a goondas. 3. Copy of the order impugned had been served upon him on the same day and copy of the grounds of detention had been served on him on 12-3-1994. 3. Copy of the order impugned had been served upon him on the same day and copy of the grounds of detention had been served on him on 12-3-1994. The other formalities of confirmation of the order of detention, reference of his case to the Advisory Board, etc, had been complied with and the Advisory Board also expressed its opinion, justifying his detention. The aggrieved petitioner detenu came forward with the present action on 23rd May, 1994 challenging his detention by raising multifarious grounds. 4. This Court, on 24-5-1994 admitting the same, issued notice returnable in four weeks. On 15-7-1994, this Court directed the respondents to file counter, if any, within four weeks and to post the case for final disposal in chronological order. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final hearing on 11-1-1995. The matter was heard in part then and after some adjournments, it was finally heard and arguments of both sides were completed on 25-1-1995. 5. Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points alone for consideration, although manifold grounds had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. They are:- (1) Non-filing of the counter affidavit containing factual materials in connection with the impugned order of detention vitiates the said order. (2) Non-furnishing of the copy of remand order, which contained details as to torture, and ill-treatment meted out to him at the hands of the police and consequent medical treatement to be given to him caused incalculable prejudice, in making an effective representation, a valuable right inhering in his favour under Articel 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repeal such submissions and instead of filing a counter, produced the relevant file for persual and consideration of this Court. 7. The non filing of the counter affidavit containing factual materials in connection with the detention order by itself can by no streatch of imagination be construed to vitiate the impugned order of detention, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, the Court is expected to go by the pleadings and a duty is cast upon the Government to place the factual materials, in connection with the detention order by filing a counter affidavit, so that the detenu can have an opportunity of meeting that factual information. No doubt, the Court is expected to go by the pleadings and a duty is cast upon the Government to place the factual materials, in connection with the detention order by filing a counter affidavit, so that the detenu can have an opportunity of meeting that factual information. However, taking into account the large volume of Habeas Corpus Petitions being filed before Court, as a consequence of number of detention orders being passed, there is an urgency for the disposal of those Habeas Corpus Petitions, involving the priceless liberty of the citizens of this country. The Habeas Corpus Petitions are taken up for final disposal in the chronological order, even if counter affidavits are not filed, provided relevant records are produced before Court by the Government with a view to give immediate succour and relief to the detenus, if their continued detention is not called for. It is not as if the file when produced by the Government, is not allowed to be seen by learned Counsel for the detenu. In such state of affairs, the non-filing of the counter is of no consequence. 8. Useful reference, at this juncture, may, however, be made to the decision in Rajindra v. Commissioner of Police 1994 SCC(Crl) 1706), to which our attention had been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner. (a) In that case, one Ravi alias Rajendra on the ground that his conduct was prejudicial to public order, had been detained by sub section (2) of Section 3, of the National Security Act, 1980. Immediately after the detention order was passed, the detenu was taken into custody and he made a representation dated 12th February, 1993 addressed to the Central Government. The representation so made was, however, rejected on 7th April 1993. (b) The detenu was not, however, successful in the High Court and he further agitated the matter before the Supreme Court. One of the points that was pressed before the High Court revolving on the question of delay in consideration of the representation was however, again re-agitated before the Supreme Court. (c) On the representation so made, the Central Government appeared to have sent a wireless message to the State Government on March 4, 1993 seeking, some details. There was no indication as to how the representation was dealt with between February 12, 1993 and March, 4, 1993. (c) On the representation so made, the Central Government appeared to have sent a wireless message to the State Government on March 4, 1993 seeking, some details. There was no indication as to how the representation was dealt with between February 12, 1993 and March, 4, 1993. The Central Government, apart from not filing the counter, did not appear to have produced the relevant file, not only before the High Court, but also before the Supreme Court. At the time when the matter was heard, learned Additional Selicitor General sought for an adjournment of the matter to enable the Central Government to produce the file. It is only in such a situation, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court quashed the detention order and ordered the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case and expressed. "We are afraid that, in the instant case by failing to file a counter affidavit and by failing to explain the ex-facie delay, the Central Government failed in its duty and, therefore, we see no alternative but to uphold the contention and quash the detention order." 9. Thus, it is crystal clear that in the case before the Supreme Court, the delay caused in consideration and disposal of the representation had not been explained by the Central Government, by not only filing counter-affidavit; but also in not producing the relevant file. The Supreme Court, however, castigated the Central Government for not filing Counter affidavit and observed that the indulgence shown by the Courts in perusing the file seems to have given an impression that the central Government is under no obligation to file a counter affidavit to explain the delay, and such an observation, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case before the Supreme Court cannot be taken for granted that in case no counter affidavit is filed in the Habeas Corpus Petition, an adverse inference has to be drawn and the petition has to be allowed straight way. 10. In the case on hand, as adverted to earlier, the file had been produced for perusal, not only by this Court; but also by the other side. In such state of affairs, no prejudice can, ever, be said to have caused to the detenu by non filing of the counter affidavit. 10. In the case on hand, as adverted to earlier, the file had been produced for perusal, not only by this Court; but also by the other side. In such state of affairs, no prejudice can, ever, be said to have caused to the detenu by non filing of the counter affidavit. It is in this view of the matter, we are of the view that the first point is liable to be rejected, as of no substance. 11. The awareness of the second respondent Detaining Authority, as respects the detenu - petitioner having been lodged in prison, as a remand prisoner, at the time when the impugned order of detention had been passed is found mentioned in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, while considering the imminent possibility of his coming out on bail and further indulging in activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The basis of the material for his such awareness is traceable to the special report of the Inspector of Police (Crimes), G. 1 Vepery Police Station, Madras. 7, which furnishes the details as to the detenu having been produced before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate. Egmore, Madras on 7-3-1994 and remand had been made for a period of 15 days till up to 21-3-1994, and such a special report had not only been placed before the second respondent Detaining Authority; but a copy of the same had been furnished to the detenu, traceable to Page 78 of the booklet of documents furnished to the detenu. It is thus clear that the awareness of the second respondent-Detaining Authority as respects the detenu being lodged in prison as a remand prisoner is based upon the special report of the Inspector of Police (Crimes) G1. Vepery Police Station, Madras-7 and nothing further and the best material for such awareness having been given to the detenu, it cannot be stated that his right of representation inhering in his favour under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been greatly affected. 12. Vepery Police Station, Madras-7 and nothing further and the best material for such awareness having been given to the detenu, it cannot be stated that his right of representation inhering in his favour under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been greatly affected. 12. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be that non furnishing of the copy of the order of remand is vital and such a defect would vitiate the order of detention, when especially the detenu was stated to have represented before the Competent Court, at the time of remand, as to his having been tortured and illtreated and for his being referred to medical treatment. Factually the projection of such a claim traceable to paragraph (m) of the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the petitioner detenu is shorn of reality of the situation, when we see the certified copy of the order of remand, made on 7-3-1994, of the detenu by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, which reads thus: "Accused produced. No complaint of ill-treatment. Accused remaded till 21-3-1994." 13. Even in the eye of law, the non-furnishing of the copy of the remand order to the detenu, is of no consequence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. As already indicated, the awareness of the second respondent-Detaining Authority as respects the detenu being in remand on the date when the impugned order of detention had been passed must be based upon some material and not specifically on a material to be produced in the shape of remand order by the competent Court. For the sake emphasis, it may be stated here that the materials relied upon by the second respondent-Detaining Authority for such awareness is the report of the Inspector of Police (Crimes), G1. Vepery Police Station, Madras. 7. 14. For the sake emphasis, it may be stated here that the materials relied upon by the second respondent-Detaining Authority for such awareness is the report of the Inspector of Police (Crimes), G1. Vepery Police Station, Madras. 7. 14. At this juncture, useful reference may be made to the decision in S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India 1981 AIR(SC) 362, 1981 CAR 293, 1981 (87) CRLJ 2, 1981 (1) SCC 419 , 1981 UJ 179 , 1980 CRLR 678, 1981 SCC(Cr) 168 : 1981 AIR(SC) 362, 1981 CAR 293, 1981 (87) CRLJ 2, 1981 (1) SCC 419 , 1981 UJ 179 , 1980 CRLR 678, 1981 SCC(Cr) 168) following Icchu Devi v. Union of India 1980 AIR(SC) 1983, 1980 CAR 393, 1980 CrLR(SC) 616, 1980 (4) SCC 531 , 1981 SCC(Cr) 25, 1981 (1) SCR 640 , 1980 CRLR 616, 1980 CrLJ 1487 : 1980 AIR(SC) 1983, 1980 CAR 393, 1980 CrLR(SC) 616, 1980 (4) SCC 531 , 1981 SCC(Cr) 25, 1981 (1) SCR 640 , 1980 CRLR 616, 1980 CrLJ 1487 ) : and Shalini Soni v. Union of India 1981 AIR(SC) 431, 1980 CAR 410, 1980 CrLR(SC) 660, 1980 (4) SCC 544 , 1981 SCC(Cr) 38, 1981 (1) SCR 962 , 1980 (86) CRLJ 1487: 1981 AIR(SC) 431, 1980 CAR 410, 1980 CrLR(SC) 660, 1980 (4) SCC 544 , 1981 SCC(Cr) 38, 1981 (1) SCR 962 , 1980 (86) CRLJ 1487), it was reiterated that if the documents which formed the basis of the order of detention were not served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention, in the eye of law, there would be no service of the grounds of detention and that circumstance would vitiate his detention and make it void ab initio. 15. The dictum, as laid down and subsequently followed in the cases, as referred to above, had also been quoted with approval in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India 1991 (S1) SCR 435, 1991 AIR(SC) 2261, 1992 (1) SCC 1 , 1991 (4) JT 103 , 1991 (2) Scale 758 , 1991 (3) Crimes 475, 1992 (1) CCR 12, 1992 SCC(Cr) 1, 1992 CrLR(SC) 21, 1992 CrLR 21, 1991 (97) CRLJ 3291, 1991 CAR 367, 1991 AIR(SCW) 2603). 16. 16. As already adverted to, the document, which formed the basis of the impugned order of detention, as respects the awareness of the Detaining Authority as to the detenu being in remand on the date when the impugned order of detention was passed had been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, this point also bristles next to nothing. 17. For the reasons as above, the Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.