Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C2/38359/2005 dated 15.07.2005 on the file of second respondent herein, quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Araselvam @ Arachelvam, Son of Ramamurthy, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Araselvam @ Arachelvam. He challenges the detention order dated 15.07.2005, detaining his son 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 would submit that in the absence of materials to show that there was a valid order of the learned Magistrate concerned, extending the remand of the accused/detenu, based on which the order of detention order has been passed, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. In support of the above contention, he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1994-1-Law Weekly (Cri) 266 (Balaraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice that though an order was passed extending the remand till 28.07.2005 on 14.07.2005, the same relates to Crime No.716 of 2005 on the file of Villupuram Taluk Police Station. Insofar as the ground case, that is, Cr. No.377 of 2005, though the detenu was remanded till 12.07.2005, there is no order by the learned Magistrate, extending his remand. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by the Division bench, when there is no material available, it is not known as to how the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds of detention that he was aware that the detenu was in remand on 15.07.2005. If the said statement is correct, he must have relied upon extraneous material not supplied to the detenu. In such circumstances, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. If the said statement is correct, he must have relied upon extraneous material not supplied to the detenu. In such circumstances, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 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.