Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.) P.D.Dinakaran, J. The petitioner, mother of the detenue, who was detained under Act 14 of 1982, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the order of detention dated 6.6.2005 on the file of the first respondent herein made in his Office ref.D.O.No.20/2005-C2, to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to produce the detenue Kalaivani before this Court and thereafter set her at liberty from the Central Prison, Vellore. 2. According to the prosecution, the ground case was said to have taken place on 22.5.2005. On that day, at about 10.00 hours, one Kannan gave an oral statement (complaint) to the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, which was recorded subsequently, that at about 8.00 hours, when he went to Samuthiram Colony, Tiruvannamalai he found one Kalaivani, selling I.D. arrack at the rear side of her house. He purchased two tumblers of I.D. arrack for Rs.20/- and consumed the same. On consumption of the said arrack, he experienced burning sensation in his stomach, chest and throat and fell down on the road side. He further stated that though he had consumed arrack for a number of times previously, he had never experienced such an indisposition. Hence, on suspecting that some poisonous substance might have been mixed with the I.D. arrack to increase the effect of intoxication, he reported the same to the police with a view to avoid such danger to the lives of any other persons. A case was registered in Crime No.1030 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Sation, for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act, 1937. 3. Taking into consideration the above case as ground case and five adverse cases of alike nature, the detaining authority had passed the order of detention on 6.6.2005 terming the detenue as "Boot-legger", under Section 3(1) 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. 4. On service of detention order, objecting the same, the detenue made a representation dated 20.6.2005 to the Government. The said representation was received by the Government on 26.6.2005. 4. On service of detention order, objecting the same, the detenue made a representation dated 20.6.2005 to the Government. The said representation was received by the Government on 26.6.2005. Remarks were called for from the detaining authority on 29.6.2005. The detaining authority called for parawar remarks from the sponsoring authority on 1.7.2005 and the same was received on the same day. Thereafter, the detaining authority sent the remarks to the Government on 2.7.2005. But, the file was considered by the Deputy Secretary on 23.6.2005 and the Minister concerned on 24.6.2005. The order of rejection was prepared on 29.6.2005 and served on the detenue on 2.7.2005. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on the grounds that (i)even before the representation of the detenue was received by the Government, viz. on 26.6.2005, the file was placed before the Deputy Secretary on 23.6.2005 and the Minister concerned on 24.6.2005; and (ii)the order of detention was passed on 29.6.2005 and served on the detenue on 2.7.2005, even without considering to the parawar remarks of the sponsoring authority and contends that the order of detention is vitiated in view of the pre-determined view of the Government and also the non application of mind by the detaining authority. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that the non application of mind by the detaining authority and the pre-determined view of the Government. 7. On perusal of the documents produced before us, is apparent on the face of the record that the above discrepancy discloses the pre determined view of the Government and the non application of mind by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. Hence, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.