Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu K.Kannan, the petitioner's son before this Court, who is confined under preventive detention in Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty by quashing the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in C.No.28/G/IS/2005 dated 19.9.2005.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu by name Kannan, 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 19.09.2005, 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 submitted that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner taking us through the averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention and other connected documents available in the paper book, contended that in the light of the discrepancy and of the fact that the alleged offence under Section 392 IPC has not been noted anywhere except in the grounds of detention, it should have been inserted at a later point of time. 4. On going through the materials and the connected documents relating to the ground case in Crime No.760 of 2005, we are unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons: Though in the FIR, there is only reference to Section 397 IPC, in all other documents, statements, sketch etc, it is stated that the accused/detenu has committed an offence under Section 392 read with 397 IPC. A perusal of those materials does not lead to an inference that the detaining authority has inserted the same at a later point of time. The said allegation is without any basis. We are unable to accept the contrary argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. A perusal of those materials does not lead to an inference that the detaining authority has inserted the same at a later point of time. The said allegation is without any basis. We are unable to accept the contrary argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though several aspects have been pointed out in the representation dated 19.10.2005, the Government, while considering the same, failed to attempt either to rectify the mistake or admit the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the reply dated 15.11.2005, the Government have not at all referred to the serious allegations made in the representation dated 19.10.2005. In the light of the said contention, we have verified the contents of representation dated 19.10.2005 as well as reply of the Government dated 15.11.2005. A perusal of the same shows that the Government adverted to all the adverse cases numbering 11 and the detaining authority, taking note of his past conduct and also of the fact that if he is allowed to continue to commit similar offence, it would affect the public peace and public order, passed the order of detention. In the same reply, the Government have also clarified that the statement published in the newspaper "Daily Thanthi" has nothing to do with the case relating to Crime No.760/2005 on the file of B2 RS Puram Police Station. In other aspects, after stating that all the required details have been furnished, rejected the representation dated 19.10.2005. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate merely because several aspects have been furnished to the detenu, it is not necessary for the detaining authority or the Government to verify all those materials. In other words, the detaining authority/Government is mainly concerned with the relied upon materials. As stated earlier, a reading of the reply dated 15.11.2005 does not lead to an inference that the Government have not considered the grievance expressed in the representation. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain discrepancies in certain documents, on perusal of the same, we are of the view that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and in any event, it would not affect the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority. 8. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain discrepancies in certain documents, on perusal of the same, we are of the view that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and in any event, it would not affect the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition fails and the same is dismissed.