Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents herein to cause production of the detenu R. Shanmugam, male, aged 30 years, son of Balakrishnan, detained at Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith and to call for the records vide Detention Order in BDFGISV No.30 of 2005 dated 31.3.2005 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is detained 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 by the impugned order of detention dated 31.03.2005 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Since the counsel, who filed the above Petition, did not turn up on the last two occasions as well as today, we requested Mr. N. Doraiswamy to act as Amicus Curiae for disposal of the above Writ Petition. 3. Heard Mr.N.Doraiswamy, Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition, the petitioner has stated that the detention order came to be passed due to mala fide action on the part of the respondents and hence, the same is not sustainable in law. It is further stated that no materials were placed before the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. It is further stated that the detention order is vague, uncertain and that the grounds stated therein are not sufficient to detain the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982. 5. With reference to the said contentions, we verified the grounds of detention, which show that before passing the order of detention, the Detaining Authority has taken note of the involvement of the detenu in the earlier cases. It is seen that the first adverse case relates to the period between 06.09.2002 and 19.09.2002 and the offences committed are punishable under Sections-457 and 380 IPC. The said incident relates to Crime No.395 of 2002 on the file of Guduvancheri Police Station and the case is pending trial. The second adverse case relates to Cr. No.23 of 2005, the occurrence is dated 17.01.2005, and the offences committed are punishable under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The said incident relates to Crime No.395 of 2002 on the file of Guduvancheri Police Station and the case is pending trial. The second adverse case relates to Cr. No.23 of 2005, the occurrence is dated 17.01.2005, and the offences committed are punishable under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The third adverse case occurrence is dated 21.01.2005 and it relates to Cr. No.26 of 2005 on the file of Sunguvarchatram Police Station. The offence involved therein is punishable Section 395 IPC. Adverse case Nos.2 and 3 are under investigation. 6. The ground case relates to an occurrence that took place on 26.01.2005. The Crime Number of the same is No.31 of 2005 on the file of Kelambakkam Circle and the offences involved are punishable under Sections 448, 398, 336 and 506 (ii) IPC. The grounds further show that the Detaining Authority, after taking into consideration all the above aspects and after being satisfied with the fact that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order of detention. In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the detention order was passed without any material. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate that neither the detenu nor anyone has made any representation to the Government, highlighting their grievance. On going through all the materials including the grounds of detention as well as the points raised in the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is no valid ground for interference. 7. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.