Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in C.O.C. No.26/2005 on the file of the first respondent, quash the detention order dated 13.09.2005, direct the production of detenu Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan, son of Balakrishnan, presently detained at the Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli, under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 13.09.2005, detaining her son by name Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan 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 (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 appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention do not disclose any material regarding disturbance of public peace or public order, warranting detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He also contended that in spite of the specific request made in the representation dated 16.11.2005 to furnish the detenu with the details pertaining to various alleged offences said to have been committed by him, the Government, by their letter dated 16.12.2005, without properly considering the request, simply rejected the representation. 4. With regard to the first contention, we verified the grounds of detention, which disclose one adverse case, the date of occurrence being 04.06.2004, registered in Cr. No.215 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section-399 IPC. read with Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act and Section-5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The details relating to the said adverse case, as stated in the grounds of detention, are extracted here-under:- " On 04.06.2004 early morning on an information received by him, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Annamalainagar Police Station along with his Police party proceeded in his jeep for a routine check up. During his movement at Melakundalapadi, Vallampadugai, the Sub-Inspector of Police and his party found the accused Thiru.Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan sitting along with his gang members at a scheduled place. When the Police party surrounded and searched him, the accused was found in possession of deadly weapons like Aruval. During his movement at Melakundalapadi, Vallampadugai, the Sub-Inspector of Police and his party found the accused Thiru.Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan sitting along with his gang members at a scheduled place. When the Police party surrounded and searched him, the accused was found in possession of deadly weapons like Aruval. His accomplices also were in possession of weapons and materials to make country bombs. It was ascertained that the accused and his accomplices were planning for robbery or theft to look money to meet out the expenses in connection with the murder cases pending against him. In this connection, the accused was arrested and the case is under investigation." Apart from the above mentioned adverse case, the ground case relates to an occurrence said to have taken place on 22.03.2005. One Tmt.Saraswathi, wife of Ayyasamy, Poovathadi, gave a statement before the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) in charge of Keelaiyur Police Station, to the effect that she and her husband Ayyasamy were running a tea shop at Vedaranyam Main Road, Poovathadi Village. On 22.03.2005, at 5 A.M., she and her husband woke up and her husband, with water in an ever-silver vessel in his hand, went to the paddy field for nature's call. After a few minutes, she heard the noise of the vessel falling down at 5.15 A.M., hence, she went to see as to what had happened. She found her husband dead with cuts on the head, face, neck and back. At that time, three persons were found running on the paddy field and she could identify them. She also told that the motive for the murder would be a consequence of a wordy quarrel with one Saravanan, because, the said Saravanan questioned the rate of the items sold at their tea stall and indulged in shouting before their shop. According to her, this could be the only reason for the murder of her husband. The Sub-Inspector, after recording the statement, registered a case in Keelaiyur Police Station Cr. No.72 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. copy, visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, seized blood stained sand packed in a polythene bag and after completing the investigation, fixed the murder accused as one Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan (detenu herein) and two of his accomplices. No.72 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. copy, visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, seized blood stained sand packed in a polythene bag and after completing the investigation, fixed the murder accused as one Murugan @ Mukkuttu Murugan (detenu herein) and two of his accomplices. The grounds further show that the detenu committed murder of the husband of the complainant in the early hours on 22.03.2005. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, absolutely there is no material to show that the detenu caused disturbance of public peace or public order. No doubt, the case of the prosecution is that he committed murder. In the lengthy paragraph (para No.3), though the Detaining Authority, who is none else than the District Magistrate and District Collector, Nagappattinam District, referred to a fact, viz., '... From the year 1999 the accused has involved himself in five murder cases, five attempted murder cases besides a number of cases. ...', as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, absolutely there is no reference to the date, place of occurrence, victims, stage of the cases etc. in respect of those occurrences. 6. We verified the entire grounds of detention as well as the documents supplied to the detenu. Though general allegations have been made stating that the detenu involved in several criminal cases including 5 murder cases and five attempt to murder cases, the District Magistrate failed to refer any material/particulars pertaining to the same. It is also not clear as to whether the Sponsoring Authority has furnished those details or not. Even otherwise, it is the paramount duty of the District Magistrate to collect those materials and, on the basis of the same, only after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the person concerned are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, he could impose the detention order. We are satisfied that the grounds of detention lack materials/details with reference to the earlier instances except one adverse and the ground case; and even on perusal of the same, we do not find any material for disturbance of public peace or public order. We are satisfied that the grounds of detention lack materials/details with reference to the earlier instances except one adverse and the ground case; and even on perusal of the same, we do not find any material for disturbance of public peace or public order. It is made clear that we are not underestimating the allegations made against the detenu, however, the fact remains, the detention order is bereft of any material regarding the crimes. 7. In the representation dated 16.11.2005, the mother of the detenu has made a specific request for furnishing the details regarding the earlier criminal cases and the documents relating to the same. In the fourth paragraph of the representation, she made the following request, The said representation was addressed to the concerned authority, viz., the Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. In the reply dated 16.12.2005, except stating that the detention order was passed taking note of the detenu's involvement in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, there is no whisper regarding the specific demand made by the mother of the detenu for furnishing details of various criminal cases in which the detenu is said to have been involved. We are of the view that the communication dated 16.12.2005 is nothing but a mechanical reply and that the person concerned has not even read the representation and applied his mind before signing the reply. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we are constrained to hold that the District Magistrate and District Collector, Nagappattinam, failed to adhere to the basic principles while clamping the detention order. We are not under-estimating the allegations/contentions regarding the offences said to have been committed by the detenu, however, the point is that relevant details have not been referred to in the grounds of detention, which shows that the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order without adequate materials. We also hold that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind and failed to collect the required details from the Sponsoring Authority. Equally, the Government also failed to take note of the specific request made by the mother of the detenu in the representation dated 16.11.2005. Courts have repeatedly held that disposal of representation is not an empty formality and that the Government/concerned Authority are duty-bound to look into the grievance expressed and issue 'suitable reply'. Equally, the Government also failed to take note of the specific request made by the mother of the detenu in the representation dated 16.11.2005. Courts have repeatedly held that disposal of representation is not an empty formality and that the Government/concerned Authority are duty-bound to look into the grievance expressed and issue 'suitable reply'. Accordingly, due to the fault of the District Magistrate as well as the Government in not applying their mind to the point in issue, though the detenu is a criminal, this Court has no other option except to quash the impugned order of detention. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.