Judgment :- N.V.Balasubramanian, J. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the detenu for a direction to call for records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 7.8.2003 in Cr.M.P.No.50/G/2003 E-4, whereby the said authority has detained the detenu as a 'Goonda' under preventive detention invoking the provisions of Act 14/1982 on the ground that he is a threat to public order and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu now detained in Central Prison Coimbatore before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. We find that there is a non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. We find that in the copy of confession statement of the detenu, which is found at page 79 of the booklet, confession statement was obtained on 30.5.2003. In page 80 of the booklet, another date 31.5.2003 is mentioned in the same statement and in the same page another date 31.9.2003 at 8.30 hours is mentioned in the same statement. However, it is seen from the first information report which is found at page 24 of the booklet, the date of occurrence is stated to be 1.6.2003 and the occurrence has taken place on the same day at 15.30 hours. However, we find that in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has stated that the occurrence has taken place on 31.5.2003 at 8.30 hours. It is also seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has relied upon the confession statement of the detenu as seen from paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. However, we find that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the various discrepancies in the dates found in the confession statement and also in the copy of first information report found at page 24 of the booklet relied upon by the detaining authority on the date of occurrence. Since he has not applied his mind to the relevant fact regarding the date of occurrence and to the various discrepancies in the dates contained in the confession statement of the detenu, which statement was relied upon by the detaining authority, we hold that there is a complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Since he has not applied his mind to the relevant fact regarding the date of occurrence and to the various discrepancies in the dates contained in the confession statement of the detenu, which statement was relied upon by the detaining authority, we hold that there is a complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Moreover, the various discrepancies in the dates mentioned would also cause confusion in the mind of the detenu, which would prevent him from making effective representation against the order of detention. Apart from that, we find that there is a non-application of mind of the detaining authority on the question of the short time space of occurrence of all adverse cases referred to by him. A cursory reading of the adverse cases shows that they occurred on the same day within a short interval of 10 minutes to 30 minutes. We are of the view that the detaining authority should have considered the question whether the adverse cases referred to by him are really one case or different cases taking into account the short time gap within which all adverse cases referred to by him have occurred. He should have applied his mind to the question whether it was a single case split into four or really four cases. We are of the view that on the facts of the case, the consideration of such a question would be relevant to determine whether the detenu was habitually committing the offences described by him to brand him as a 'Goonda'. Hence, we hold that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Further, the detenu was prevented from making effective representation against the order of detention. Hence, we hold that the order of detention dated 7.8.2003 passed by the first respondent in Cr.M.P.no.50/G/2003 against the detenu, which is challenged in this petition is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 4. The Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The order of preventive detention dated 7.8.2003 passed in the case of the detenu, Deivasigamani @ Kattamani @ Mani is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in some other cause or case.