Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Ravi, who was detained as a bootlegger under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings dated 19.11.2004, and she challenges the same in this habeas corpus petition. 2. This is a second petition challenging the very same detention order. We have verified the earlier order passed by this Court dated 02.03.2005 in HCP.No.35 of 2005, wherein the same was dismissed only on the ground that there was no inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu. No other point had been urged or considered. 3. In the present petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while drawing our attention to the reference made in para 5 of the grounds of detention, would submit that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The said relevant portion reads as under: "I am aware that Thiru Ravi, Son of Mari is now in remand in Sub Jail, Kallakurichi. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kallakurichi has been requested to transfer him to the Central Prison, Cuddalore as detention order has been passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. However, there is an imminent possibility of the said Thiru Ravi, Son of Mari moving bail application and coming out on bail for the offence u/s.4(1)(i), 4(1-A) & 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937". 4. A reading of the above shows that the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kallakurichi was requested to transfer the detenu to Central Prison, Cuddalore as if an order had been passed under Act 14 of 1982. In similar circumstances, viz., in HCP No.46 of 2005 dated 08.03.2005, the Division Bench of this Court, after finding that the said aspect would indicate that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while passing the detention order, quashed the detention order therein. The said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand in view of the lacuna as pointed out above. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand in view of the lacuna as pointed out above. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.