Judgment : S. Jagadeesan. J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu, who had been detained as a ‘ Goonda’ as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention, dated 4. 1999 issued by the second respondent herein. 2. Since the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner had already been covered by a number of judgments of this court. we do not propose to deal with the facts in detail. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sponsoring Authority has filed the affidavit before the Detaining Authority, on 4. 1999. Subsequent to the filing of the affidavit, the bail petition filed by the detenu, dated 4. 1999, had been forwarded to the Detaining Authority, which forms part of the booklet. In the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority, he has categorically stated that no bail application has been moved by the detenu. Hence, the bail application enclosed in the booklet ought to have been forwarded subsequent to the filing of the affidavit by the Sponsoring Authority, and hence, the same ought to have been forwarded with a covering letter or an additional affidavit, failing which the order of detention is vitiated. 4. We carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Detaining Authority, in Paragraph No. 6 has categorically stated that he was aware that the detenu has filed a bail application before the sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P. No. 1738 of 1999, on 4. 1999 and the matter was informed to the Sponsoring Authority on 4. 1999., and the same was adjourned to 14. 1999. The above statement would clearly reveal that the Sponsoring Authority has got information about the filing of the bail application only on 4. 1999, which is subsequent to the filing of the affidavit before the detaining Authority. It is not clear as to how this information had been passed on to the Detaining Authority except through the enclosed bail petition in the booklet. We also noticed from the records that the Public Prosecutor has made an endorsement, taking notice of the bail petition on 4. 1999. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that a copy of the bail petition ought to have been forwarded to the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority subsequent to the filing of his affidavit. 5. We also noticed from the records that the Public Prosecutor has made an endorsement, taking notice of the bail petition on 4. 1999. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that a copy of the bail petition ought to have been forwarded to the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority subsequent to the filing of his affidavit. 5. In Alagar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , H.C.P. No. 1298 of 98 a Division Bench of this Court has held that whenever the Sponsoring Authority forwards any document to the Detaining Authority, subsequent to his filing of the affidavit, the same should be accompanied by a covering letter or an additional affidavit. The failure to do so, would nullify the order of detention. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the case on hand, is not in a position to satisfy the Court that the copy of the bail petition has been forwarded to the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority. Subsequent to filing of the affidavit with a covering letter or an Additional Affidavit. Hence, the principle laid down in Alagar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , HCP No. 1298 of 98 would squarely cover the issue involved in this case, and following the same, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The Impugned Order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.