S.Jagadeesan, J.: The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Velumani alias Gopi, who had been detained as a Goonda as contemplated under Sec.2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu has two adverse cases, which are of the years 1994 and 1997. The ground case on which the order of detention was passed had taken place on 22.8.1998 at about 7 p.m. at Thiruvottriyur High Road. While demanding mamool, the detenu seems to have terrorised the fruit vendor Kandan saying, While the said Kandan resisted to give mamool, the detenu picked up a knife from his back and rushed to cut him saying The police party, who were patrolling that area, rushed to the scene. On seeing the police, the detenu felt offended and stated as follows: He also threatened the police party as well as the public from nearing him. Ultimately, the police party overpowered, took custody and brought him to H5 New Washermenpet Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.625 of 1999 under Secs.341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the impugned order of detention was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following three grounds, while attacking the impugned order of detention: “(i) The date of occurrence with regard to the ground case was not mentioned in the grounds of detention and as such, the impugned order of detention himself is vitiated. (ii) The family members of the detenu were not informed about the detention of the detenu. (iii) No records were placed before the Detaining Authority to show that the detenu was in custody on the date of the impugned order of detention.” 4. Learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side produced the files. We have also perused the same. 5. With regard to the first information contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner we also find from the order of detention that the date of ground case occurrence was not mentioned. But the question is as to whether the non-mentioning of the date of the ground case occurrence would affect the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind? We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the ground case, the grounds of detention reveal the entire incident in respect of the ground case including the time and the place. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the ground case, the grounds of detention reveal the entire incident in respect of the ground case including the time and the place. When that be so, the Detaining Authority is fully aware as to which is the ground case. There is no dispute that the copy of the first information report in the ground case forms part of the booklet furnished to the Detaining Authority. At page 59, the complaint registered by the police is available. There is no dispute in respect of the facts furnished in the said complaint and the details furnished in the grounds of detention with regard to the ground case. The date is specifically mentioned in the complaint registered at the police station. Hence, the non-mentioning of the date of ground case occurrence in the grounds of detention, in our view,is only an omission and the same is not a vital omission so as to vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind. 6. As stated already when the ground case under which the detenu was taken to custody and ultimately, the order of detention was passed is clear and unambiguous, the mere non-mentioning of the date of ground case occurrence in the grounds of detention will not vitiate the impugned order of detention. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 7. So far as the second ground of attack that the family members of the detenu have not been informed about the detention of the detenu is concerned, we find from the records that a messenger went to the house of the detenu twice. Since the house of the detenu was found locked, the communication was served by affixture. The affixture had been attested by two independent witnesses who are the resident’s in the nearby place. Hence, it cannot be said that the family members of the detenu were not informed about the detention of the detenu. Hence, the second ground also is without any substance. 8. The affixture had been attested by two independent witnesses who are the resident’s in the nearby place. Hence, it cannot be said that the family members of the detenu were not informed about the detention of the detenu. Hence, the second ground also is without any substance. 8. So far as the third and last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no record before the Detaining Authority to show that the detenu was under custody is concerned, from the files, it could be seen that the special report furnished by the sponsoring authority reveals that the detenu is under remand from 6.9.1999 to 20.9.1999. When the impugned order of detention had been passed on 14.9.1999, there is sufficient material before the Detaining Authority to show that the detenu is under custody as a remand prisoner at the time of passing the order of detention. Hence, there is no merit in this contention also. 9. No other contention was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, we are of the opinion that this petition is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order of detention.