Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.) P.D.Dinakaran, J. This petition is against the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, directing the preventive detention of one Selvam, son of Sathaiyha, branding him as a Bootlegger under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. 2. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the document at page No.109 of the booklet would show that the sponsoring authority had taken a predetermined view to move before the detaining authority to put the detenu under Act 14 of 1982. 3. We have gone through the relevant documents and heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well. 4. The document at page No.109 is the remand requisition made by the Inspector of Police, the Sponsoring Authority, which reads as follows, "ghh;itapy; fz;l tHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l ,jd; khh;$pdpy; fz;l vjphpia ,e;j tHf;fpy; 19/3/05k; njjp jh';fs; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$h; bra;J hpkhz;l; bra;ag;gl;L brd;id kj;jpa rpiwapy; milf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;/ ,tiu Fz;lh; jLg;g[ fhty; rl;lj;jpy; milf;f eltof;if nkw;;f;bfhs;sg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ vdnt. nkw;fz;l ,e;j tHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l vjphpf;F hpkhz;l; Mh;lh; tH';FkhW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/" The words, ,tiu Fz;lh; jLg;g[ fhty; rl;lj;jpy; milf;f eltof;if nkw;;f;bfhs;sg;gl;L tUfpwJ clearly shows the predetermined view taken by the sponsoring authority even before passing of the order by the detaining authority. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground. 5. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 28.3.2005 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the detenu from custody forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case or cause.