Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2006 dated 27.04.2006 and set aside the order of detention and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Rukkumani @ Kaippillai, wife of Ramalingam, before this Court and release her forthwith from custody, who is now confined in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirapalli.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of the detenue by name Rukkumani @ Kaippillai, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under 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 detention order dated 27.04.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. While elaborating the above contention, it is pointed out that the arrest memo, which is available at page 34 is containing crime No.22/2006 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuvagam. According to the learned counsel, the accused was arrested at 09.30 a.m. on 01.04.2006 and the same is also clear from the First Information Report, which is available at pages 27 and 28. If that is so, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the crime number could not have found place in the arrest memo, which was prepared at the time of arrest at 9.30 a.m. In fact the FIR makes it clear that, after the arrest of the accused at 9.30 a.m. along with contraband, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuvagam Police Station at 10.30 a.m. registered a case in Crime No.22/2006 under Sections 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A) of TNP Act and Section 328 IPC. This discrepancy was not noticed by the detaining authority and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order was passed mechanically without satisfying himself. On this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. 4. This discrepancy was not noticed by the detaining authority and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order was passed mechanically without satisfying himself. On this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. 4. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other case or cause.