Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records from the file of the second respondent with regard to memo No.388 of 2005 dated 02.08.2005 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce Sakthivelu, S/o Mani, No.17-A. Dr. Gopal Menan Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, now detained in Central Prsion, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Sakthivelu, who was detained as a '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) by the impugned detention order dated 02.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the details furnished in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention would contend that in the absence of remand extension order in respect of Crime No.2240 of 2005 of F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, which relates to the second adverse case, the impugned order of detention passed by the detaining authority is liable to be quashed. 4. Since relevant material has not been taken note of with reference to the same, we verified the paper book supplied to the detenu. Though by an order dated 11.07.2005, the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has remanded the accused/detenu till 25.07.2005 in respect of Crime No.2240/2005 on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station, there is no subsequent order extending the remand in the said Crime No.2240/2005, inasmuch as the same is a material, the detaining authority ought to have considered. In such circumstances, we are of the view that failure to consider the same vitiates the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority. There is no dispute with regard to the same on the part of the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.