Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband namely Manickam, S/o. Venu, detained under Act 14/82, vide detention order dated 09.09.2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in Memo No.448/BDFGISV/2005, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before the Court and thereafter set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. She challenges the impugned order of detention dated 09.09.2005, detaining her husband as 'Goonda' 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). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the detenu dated 06.10.2005 was not properly considered on merits. According to him, in spite of the request made by the detenu, he was not supplied with copies of remand orders in respect of the adverse cases. With reference to the said contention, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that only in respect of the ground case, the learned Magistrate remanded him. It is true that, at the first instance, a request was made by the Inspector of Police, E-4 Abhiramapuram Police Station, Chennai-18, seeking remand in respect of Crime Nos.1796 of 2005 and 1746 of 2005 on the file of the above Police Station. However, the learned Magistrate remanded the accused/detenu till 02.09.2005 by order dated 20.8.2005 in respect of Cr. No.1796 of 2005 and thereafter, by order dated 02.09.2005, remand was further extended till 16.09.2005. Meanwhile, the detention order was passed on 09.09.2005. It is clear from the materials placed that the detenu was remanded only in respect of Crime No.1796 of 2005, which relates to the ground case, and copy of the remand order was duly supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. In such circumstances, there is no question of sending copies of remand orders relating to other cases, when no order has been passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. In such circumstances, there is no question of sending copies of remand orders relating to other cases, when no order has been passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the detention order passed against the detenu. Learned Government Advocate by placing the records, submitted that brother of the detenu by name Selvam was intimated on 10.09.2002 and the intimation was acknowledged by him in the presence of two witnesses. Hence, we reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.