Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 3.10.2005, passed by the first respondent herein, in his office ref.D.O.No.44/2005-C2, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Ganesan, son of Munusamy, Perunkolathur Colony, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Vellore, 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, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Ganesan. She challenges the impugned order of detention dated 03.10.2005, detaining her husband as '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). 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, by drawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph No.3(b) of the grounds of detention, viz., though the detenu was initially produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam on 09.09.2005, he was ordered to be produced on 10.09.2005 by the Magistrate and on 10.09.2005, he was remanded for 14 days, ie., till 23.09.2005; submitted that there is no material except the order dated 10.09.2005. In other words, according to the learned counsel, in the absence of order by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the detenu was initially produced on 09.09.2005 and he was ordered to be produced on 10.09.2005, it is evident that the Detaining Authority has considered and taken note of irrelevant materials while passing the impugned order of detention. 4. In the light of the said contention, we verified the remand order dated 10.09.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, as well as the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority dated 30.09.2005. As rightly pointed out, there was no specific order by the learned Magistrate regarding the production of the accused/detenu on 09.09.2005 and the subsequent direction by the learned Magistrate for production on 10.09.2005 either by way of separate order or specific reference in the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority. As rightly pointed out, there was no specific order by the learned Magistrate regarding the production of the accused/detenu on 09.09.2005 and the subsequent direction by the learned Magistrate for production on 10.09.2005 either by way of separate order or specific reference in the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority. In such circumstances, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order, considered irrelevant and extraneous materials, which vitiates the ultimate order passed by him. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.