Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The order of preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged by the detenu. 2. The allegation in the grounds of detention is to the effect that the detenu is a Bootlegger. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed several contentions. However, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions as in our opinion the contention relating to non supply of materials in respect of adverse cases is substantial and worthy of acceptance. 3. In the order of detention dt.17.5.2003, it has been indicated that the detenu has committed nine serious offences during the year 2002 and 2003 punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act as shown in the proceedings. However, in the proceedings, reference has been made only regarding seven cases and no particular has been given in respect of two other cases. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the Tamil version of the order, the reference is only seven cases. Obviously, there was a typographical error in the English order, which had been signed by the Authority. Even if the submission of the respondents is accepted, it is evident that the petitioner must have been prejudiced by non clarification of this mistake. Moreover, this mistake would show that the Detaining Authority, while passing and signing the English order, had not applied his mind to the factual position. 5. Hence the order of detention is set aside. Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with some other case.