Judgment : Per P. K. MISRA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. 2. The mother of the detenu has filed the above Habeas Corpus petition. The detenu has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 on the allegation that he is a ‘Goonda‘. 3. The order of detention is passed on two adverse cases, viz., R-4 Pondy Bazar Pokice station Crime No. 942 of 2005 registered under Sections 341, 294 (b), 326 read with 34 I.P.C. and St. Thomas Mount police Station Crime No. 786 of 2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 341,324,307 and 302 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. The ground case is numbered as St. Thomas Mount Police Station Crime No.805 of 2006 registered under Section 341, 392,336 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 4. One of the main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the mother of the detenu had made a representation on 9.11.2006 to the Commissioner of police, the detaining authority, wherein it was indicated that the Inspector of police, St. Thomas Mount police Station, was taking steps to falsely implicate the son of the petitioner and the said Inspector was demanding money and the son of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above said cases. 5. The order of detention was passed on 25.11.2006. Even though it is not specifically indicated in such order of detention that there was a possibility of preventive detention, the fact remains that mother of the detenu has made specific allegation saying that her son had been falsely implicated. It was, therefore, necessary on the part of the Commissioner of police, the detaining authority, to look into such matter before passing the order of detention on 25.11.2006. It is no doubt true that subsequently, in the month of December 2006, after the detention order had been passed, a Communication was sent indicating that the allegations made against the detenu are not correct. But since the representation had been made much before the order of detention was passed and characterising about the innocence of the detenu, it was the duty of the Commissioner to into such matter. 6. In our opinion, the order of detention is vitiated on account of the fact that the representation, which had been admittedly made much before the order of detention was passed, was not at all considered at that stage. 6. In our opinion, the order of detention is vitiated on account of the fact that the representation, which had been admittedly made much before the order of detention was passed, was not at all considered at that stage. In view of the aforesaid reason, the order of detention passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed.