R.Balasubramanian, J.: This case has been taken out of turn, takingnote of the fact that the detention order expires on 31.5.2000. 2. The petitioner is detained as a bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act14 of 1982 by detention order dated 31.5.1999. Mr.N.Doraisamy, learned counselappearing for the petitioner submitted only one point and that is as follows:The recovery mahazar found at page 33 of the booklet shows the recovery of twosamples of 500 ml. each in two containers. However, the chemical examiner’sreport at page 53 of the booklet shows that the sample received in one containerand subject to test was of the volume of 520 ml. Therefore, there is discrepancyin the volume of the contraband stated to have been recovered and the volume ofcontraband stated to have been sent to the laboratory for test. 3. A number of judgments are there not only by this Court but also byvarious other Division Benches of this Court holding that whenever such adiscrepancy is shown on record, it is the duty of the Detaining Authority to askfor clarification from the sponsoring authority and any failure to do so wouldvitiate the order of detention, since there is no guarantee as to what wasrecovered alone was sent to the laboratory for test. In this case also, we findno explanation has been asked for by the Detaining Authority from the sponsoringauthority. Following the long line of judgments we have to hold that thediscrepancy in the volume of contraband recovered and tested goes to the root ofthe matter and there appears to be clear non-application of mind, which vitiatesthe order of detention. 4. Accordingly, this H.C.P. is allowed. The impugned order ofdetention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.