Judgment :- P.Shanmugam, J. The detenu is the petitioner. He has challenged the order of detention dated 6.4.2003 passed by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of Act 14 of 1982 branding the detenu as a Goonda and detaining him in custody. 2. The detenu is said to have been brought to the adverse notice of the first respondent in 38 cases committed from 1999 to 2003. These cases were registered under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. in different police stations in and around the city of Chennai. Besides the adverse cases, Crime No.450 of 2003 is registered against him at Thirumangalam Police Station under Sections 341, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 3. The ground case came to be registered on the complaint of one Dharanipathy, son of K.V.Krishnan. According to the said complaint, he is running a chicken stall, and while he was proceeding to Mogappair to purchase chicken for his business, he was wrongfully restrained by the detenu and his associates and he was commanded to hand over the cash and was threatened that if he fails to do so, he will be murdered. When the complainant questioned as to why he should give the money, the detenu and his associates openly threatened that when the whole District is afraid of their names, how can he afford to challenge them. While so saying, one of the associates of the detenu put his hand in the pocket of the complainant and took away cash of Rs.1,500/- and the detenu removed the gold chain putting the knife on the complainant’s neck and the other associates took his gold ring and wrist watch. When the complainant raised a hue and cry and the public came to the rescue and rushed to apprehend the detenu and his associates, immediately, the detenu and his associates took picked up empty cool drink bottles from the nearby shop and threw them on the road which fell down on the road, broken into pieces and scattered all over the road. The traffic came to a halt and the public at the spot, noticing the atrocious activities of the detenu and his associates, ran to safer places. The shops were closed. The detenu and his associates were trying to escape from the spot in their motor cycles. The traffic came to a halt and the public at the spot, noticing the atrocious activities of the detenu and his associates, ran to safer places. The shops were closed. The detenu and his associates were trying to escape from the spot in their motor cycles. At the same time, the police personnel who were on patrol duty, noticing the incident, rushed to the spot and they were able to secure one Srinivasan and the detenu. The complaint was lodged and the Inspector of Police (Law & Order) took up the case for further investigation and arrested the detenu and his associates and obtained their statements. They were produced before the Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, all the materials were placed before the first respondent who was subjectively satisfied that the detenu is a habitual offender and has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; that he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982 and that there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence, passed the order of detention. The said order is under challenge. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and considered the matter carefully. 5. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the detenu dated 11.4.2003 had not been disposed of expeditiously. However, from the records furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the representation dated 11.4.2003 was disposed of on 2.5.2003 within a period of ten days. The detenu’s representation dated 11.4.2003 to the Commissioner of Police was also considered and disposed of by his rejection letter dated 16.4.2003. His second representation dated 7.5.2003 was also disposed of on 21.5.2003 and that the representation was attended to at every stage without any unreasonable delay and hence, we find no merits in that statement. 6. The second submission that this is not a case of public order, but is purely a case of law and order and that the ground case is a foisted one, merits no consideration. 6. The second submission that this is not a case of public order, but is purely a case of law and order and that the ground case is a foisted one, merits no consideration. From the records, it is seen that this is not the only case in which the detenu is involved. There are 38 cases against him. From the complaint and the statement, we find that the detenu is a repeated offender and that he had created a fear among the public of their safety to their property and that he had been acting in concert with his associates in breaking the houses and taking the properties and there are recoveries and evidences to that effect. It is seen that apart from the 38 cases registered against the detenu for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C., recoveries have been made implicating the detenu and his associates and the detenu has been caught red-handed in the ground case. Hence, the submission that this is only a case of law and order cannot be accepted. 7. We have already considered H.C.P.No.762 of 2003 filed by one of the associates of the detenu and dismissed the same by order dated 20.11.2003. 8. The further submission is that there is a controversy as to the time of arrest and some of the recoveries are shown to be earlier to the time of arrest and that the said discrepancy should be taken to the advantage of the detenu. The remand report dated 13.3.2003 of the Inspector of Police filed before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, is seen at page No.697 of the booklet, wherein, it is clearly stated that the detenu and three others were arrested at 8.00 hours on 12.3.2003 and setting out the facts of the case against the detenu and his associates, the Inspector sought for police custody of them from 13.3.2003 to 27.3.2003. Page 407 of the booklet contains the mahazar of the property seized from the house of the detenu under Crime No.450 of 2003. The recovery mahazars found at Pages 567 and 571 giving the date as 12.3.2003 morning must be a mistake. From all other documents, it is clear that the detenu was arrested at 18.00 hours on 12.3.2003 and the recoveries were made subsequently on the next day. 9. The recovery mahazars found at Pages 567 and 571 giving the date as 12.3.2003 morning must be a mistake. From all other documents, it is clear that the detenu was arrested at 18.00 hours on 12.3.2003 and the recoveries were made subsequently on the next day. 9. All the recoveries found in a number of pages, for instance in pages 575, 585, 589 and 591 of the booklet, clearly show that the recoveries were effected on the morning of 13.3.2003 from different places. Similarly, the arrest card notice of another associate namely, Selvam contains the date as 12.3.2003 instead of 13.3.2003. 10. Insofar as the arrest of the detenu is concerned, it is found in pages 665 and 667 of the booklet that he was arrested at 18.00 hours on 12.3.2003 and the details of time of arrest of his associates are found in pages 679, 681 and 683 of the booklet. The detenu was produced before the Magistrate at 4.20 p.m. on 13.3.2003 and was remanded till 27.3.2003. 11. Considering the various cases registered against the detenu, the voluminous documents as well as the recoveries effected at more than 50 places, the erroneous reference to the time or date of arrest of the detenu is not material enough to hold that there is non-application of mind. Taking into account the F.I.R., the arrest card, the confession statements of recoveries and the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the detenu was taken to custody only at 6.00 p.m. on 12.3.2003 on the basis of the complaint registered in the ground case. Hence, we do not find any serious discrepancy so as to hold that there is non-application of mind. 12. Lastly, it is submitted that the family members of the detenu were not intimated of the order of detention. From the file produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the detenu has given two addresses, one at Ponneri, Tiruvallur District and another at Ramanathapuram District. The detenu’s father was intimated by registered post to his permanent residential address and the registration receipt is furnished before us. Therefore, we find that the detenu’s father was immediately intimated. No other points were argued. For the above reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of detention. Hence, this H.C.P. is dismissed.