Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The order dated 4. 2007, passed by the second respondent in Memo No.147/BDFGISSV/2007, branding one Bharath @ Chottai Bharath, as a Goonda and directing his detention 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), is challenged in this writ petition by the brother of the detenu. 2. The order of detention dated 4. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 23. 2007, which was registered in Crime No.311 of 2007 on the file of E1 Mylapore Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 341, 332, 307, 336, 427 and 506(2), on the basis of the special report of the Sub Inspector of Police. It is stated in the special report that while the Sub-Inspector of Police along with his police party was on his rounds, the detenu and his associates, who are the history sheeted rowdies, were found talking at the junction of P.V.Koil street and when the police personnel tried to apprehend them, they wielded their knives and rushed to cut the Sub-Inspector of Police, which when warded off, fell on the left hand of the Sub-Inspector of Police and caused bleeding injuries. The detenu and his associates hurled the soda bottles on the road, which created terror and panic. The public noticed the atrocious activities and raised hue and cry. Taking advantage of the panic situation, the detenu and his associates escaped from the spot. The report of the Sub-Inspector of Police was registered in Crime No.311 of 2007, referred to above and during the course of investigation, the detenu was arrested and sent for judicial remand. 3. The detaining authority, treating the above case as the ground case, and also finding four adverse cases of alike nature as against the detenu, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him 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 learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. According to the learned counsel, with regard to the fourth adverse case, viz., Crime No.579 of 2006, it is stated that the case is under investigation. But, as per the booklet furnished to the detenu, the investigation in the said case is stated to be over and final report has been filed. There is no proper explanation for this discrepancy by the detaining authority. 5. On going through the materials placed before us, we find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On a perusal of the booklet produced before us, we find that at page No.63, final report in Crime No.579 of 2006, which has been filed by the police before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. But, however, in the grounds of detention relating to the fourth adverse case, it is stated that the case is under investigation, which is an error apparent on the face of record, and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. In the result, the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.