Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. Petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 12. 2006, passed against her husband, Chandra Sekar @ Sekar, by the second respondent in proceedings No.305/2006, branding him as Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The ground case, based on which the order of detention dated 12. 2006 was passed, came to be registered pursuant to the complaint given by one Anthony Christopher against the detenu. According to Anthony Christopher, on 11. 2006 at 5.30 p.m., he parked his motorcycle at Mangkesh street and went for purchase of clothes and after returning, not finding his motorcycle in the parked spot, he searched for the same and found the detenu pulling his motorcycle and proceeding. When he questioned, the detenu threatened him at the point of knife. The complainant raised hue and cry and immediately, the detenu rushed to stab him, but the complainant moved aside and escaped from the attack. On hearing the hue and cry, the public who were at the spot, tried to apprehend the detenu and the detenu threatened the public by brandishing the knife and also hurled the soda bottles on the road creating terror and panic at the spot as also dislocation of normalcy in that area. On hearing the noise of the public, the police attached to R1 Mambalam police station came to the spot and apprehended the detenu with the help of the public and after returning to the police station, registered a case against him in Crime NO.884 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 397, 336, 427 and 506(2) I.P.C. 3. Taking into consideration the above said ground case as well as thirteen other adverse cases, the detaining authority, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The main ground on which the order of detention is assailed is, with regard to the discrepancy found between the remand extension order and the special report sent by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority. 4. The main ground on which the order of detention is assailed is, with regard to the discrepancy found between the remand extension order and the special report sent by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority. According to the learned counsel, the remand of the detenu was extended from 20.11.2006 to 12. 2006 as per the remand extension report dated 20.11.2006, found at page 97 of the booklet, whereas in the special report sent by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, found at page 98 of the booklet, it is stated that the remand of the detenu was extended from 20.11.2006 to 12. 2006, which discrepancy has not been clarified and hence, has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. 5. We have perused the materials placed before us. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, there is an error apparent on the face of record as to the extension of remand of the detenu and the detaining authority failed to clarify the said mistake, which shows the non-application of mind. Therefore, we are inclined to allow this habeas corpus petition on the ground of non-application of mind. 6. In the result, the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.