Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Peeli, who was detained as Goonda 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 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"), by the detention order of the second respondent made in Memo No.99/2005 dated 15.03.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset by pointing out the Observation Mahazar, which is available at page 105 of the paper book contended that in view of the reference therein, viz., relating to the date of occurrence and the reference made in other documents, it is presumed that there is no such occurrence at all and in the absence of acceptable evidence / material, the detaining authority has committed an error in passing the impugned detention order. 4. We verified the Observation Mahazar, which is available at page 105 of the paper book. It is true that the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 03.03.2004. It is not in dispute that it relates to Crime No.264 of 2005 on the file of Washermanpet Police Station for the offence under Sections 341,392, 397, 336 and 506 (ii) IPC. Though in the said Observation Mahazar it is stated that the date of occurrence is 03.03.2004, in all other documents it has been correctly stated as 01.03.2005. As rightly pointed out, even the document available at page 105 of the paper book has been attested by two witnesses, viz., Muthu and Suresh, who in their statements has referred to the date of occurrence as 01.03.2005. Apart from the statement of those two persons, others also made a statement, specifically referred to the date of occurrence as 01.03.2005. That apart, in the First Information Report, Form 95, seizure mahazar, etc., it is correctly stated that 01.03.2005 as the date of occurrence, based on which the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Apart from the statement of those two persons, others also made a statement, specifically referred to the date of occurrence as 01.03.2005. That apart, in the First Information Report, Form 95, seizure mahazar, etc., it is correctly stated that 01.03.2005 as the date of occurrence, based on which the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the said Observation Mahazar available at page 105 is not a relied upon document, on the other hand, in all relied upon documents, the date of occurrence has been correctly stated as 01.03.2005. In such a circumstance, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to arrest memo, which is available page 125 of the booklet contended that though the intimation of his arrest was informed to one Sathya, according to the counsel, the detenu has no such relation. In the same document, the name and address as well as his relationship with the detenu have been specifically stated in Column 12. In the light of the details available therein, we reject the said contention also. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Hence, this petition is dismissed.