Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) The petitioner by name Kamala, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 29.09.2005, detaining her son Anand @ Venkatesan as "Goonda" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"). 2. Heard both sides. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing our attention to paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention would contend that though the ground case occurrence was said to have taken place on 12.09.2005, the detaining authority proceeded as if that the said occurrence had taken place on 13.09.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. According to him, the above aspect shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. He further contended that absolutely there is no material to show that the ground case took place on 13.09.2005. 4. In the light of the said contention, we verified paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention. The Grounds of Detention proceeds as if that the ground case occurrence relating to 13.09.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. No doubt, learned Government Advocate by pointing out several documents, such as First Information Report, arrest card, confession statement of the detenu and other statements, contended that the ground case occurrence had in fact taken place on 12.09.2005 and not on 13.09.2005, as stated in paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention. According to him this is only a typographical error. 5. We are unable to accept the said explanation, because first of all though in the affidavit in paragraph 7 a specific objection has been taken with regard to the statement of fact made by the Detaining Authority in para 3 of the Detention Order, the same has not been disputed by filing counter affidavit. Further though the learned Government advocate has pointed out that in all other material documents the date of occurrence has been correctly stated, viz., 12.09.2005, we are of the view that the detaining authority while passing an order under Act 14 of 1982 ought to have taken note of the relevant date based on which the detention has been passed. Further though the learned Government advocate has pointed out that in all other material documents the date of occurrence has been correctly stated, viz., 12.09.2005, we are of the view that the detaining authority while passing an order under Act 14 of 1982 ought to have taken note of the relevant date based on which the detention has been passed. In such circumstances and in view of the fact that there is no explanation from the detaining authority for mentioning the date as 13.09.2005 in stead of 12.09.2005, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it amply shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention passed by him. On this ground, the order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case. This order cannot be cited as a precedent for any other case.