Judgment :- (This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Memo No. 124/BDFGISV/2005 dated 23.3.2005 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue Jagadeesan, S/o.Ramani Babu, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) P.Sathasivam, J. This is the second petition preferred by the father of the detenu challenging the detention order dated 23.3.2005 detaining one Jagadeesan as a Video Pirate under section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. It is not in dispute that by order dated 9.8.2005, in the earlier Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the very same petitioner, (vide HCP.No.411/2005), this Court after considering all the contentions raised therein and after finding that there is no merit in the said contentions, upheld the order of detention and dismissed the said Petition. 3. In the present Habeous Corpus Petition, the petitioner has raised two additional contentions. The first additional contention is that inasmuch as the detaining authority has referred to and relied on an irrelevant fact viz., Chapter 16 of the Copy Right Act 1957, the ultimate conclusion and the order of detention is liable to be set aside. While elaborating the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inasmuch as there is no Chapter 16 in the Copy Right Act, 1957, reference made to Chapter 16 makes it different that the detaining authority has not applied its mind before passing the order of detention. 4. It is brought to our notice that in HCP.No.1834 of 2005 by order dated 2.1.2006, while considering similar objections relating to non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, this Court after finding that in the absence of Chapter 16 in the statute, viz., Copy Rights Act, 1957, reference to the same in the grounds of detention is only a typographical error and it cannot be construed as though the authority has not applied its mind, rejected the said contention. The said conclusion of us is equally applicable to the case on hand and for the same reason, we also reject the first additional contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The said conclusion of us is equally applicable to the case on hand and for the same reason, we also reject the first additional contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Coming to the second contention, viz., representations of the petitioner were not duly considered and in the reply dated 30.5.2005 the detaining authority has stated irrelevant aspects, we verified the representation of the petitioner dated 25.4.2005 and the subsequent representation Nil dated as well as the reply of the Government dated 30.5.2005. It is seen from the reply of the Government that after meeting the grievance of the petitioner in his representation, it is stated that all required documents have already been supplied. It is true that the petitioner has not made any request for supply of certain documents. Though the reply by the Government refers to certain irrelevant aspects, we are of the view that it cannot be presumed that the authority has not applied its mind while considering the representations of the petitioner. In the light our discussion and in view of the earlier order dated 9.8.2005, we do not find any merit in the present contention also. 6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.