Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The order of detention dated 22. 2007 on the allegation that the detenu is a Bootlegger is in question. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has referred to the fact that a detailed field enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer had confirmed that the defenu was engaged in possession and sale of illicit arrack. Subsequently in the representation the detenu requested for supply of copy of such report furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The representation was rejected and nothing was indicated regarding furnishing of such copy. In the above background, the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1256/2006 disposed of on 2. 2007 has contended that the order of detention has become vitiated on account of non-furnishing of document which was relied upon by the detaining authority. It is also pointed out that in any case when representation was made, at this stage the copy should have been furnished. On going through the document we find that the ratio of the said decision is applicable. 4. Accordingly, the detention order is quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.