Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The order dated 3. 2007, passed by the second respondent in C4/D.O/10/2007, branding the detenu, by name Ezhumalai @ Siva 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 mother of the detenu. 2. The order of detention dated 3. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 2. 2007, which was registered in Crime No.28 of 2007 on the file of Puduchathiram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 294 (b), 332, 506(ii) and 307 IPC and Sec.25(1)(b) of Arms Act, on the basis of the special report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Puduchathiram Police Station. It is stated in the special report that while the police personnel attached to Puduchathiram Police station was conducting a bandobust in Puduchathiram bus stand, they found the detenu, armed with a veecharuval, threatening the public and demanding money for the purpose of taking liquor and was having wordy quarrel with them. On seeing this, the police party warned the detenu to stop his prejudicial activities. Getting annoyed, the detenu shouted in filthy language and snatched the soda bottles from a nearby shop and smashed them on the road and further threatened the public with dire consequences, thereby created panic situation and dislocation of traffic in the spot. Hence, a case was registered on the file of Puduchathiram Police Station in Crime No.28 of 2007, as referred to above. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Puduchathiram Police Station caused the arrest of the detenu and produced him before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai, who remanded him to judicial custody. 3. The detaining authority, treating the above case as the ground case, and also taking into consideration two 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. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the representation of the detenu dated 3. 2007 was considered and rejected by the Government, it should have been considered by the detaining authority since the said representation was received by the detaining authority on 13. 2007, which is within twelve days from the date of passing of detention order and on this ground, the order of detention gets vitiated. 5. On going through the materials placed before us, we find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, a representation dated 3. 2007 was sent to the detaining authority within twelve days from the date of detention order, viz., 3. 2007 and the same was received by the detaining authority on 13. 2007. On receipt of the same, the detaining authority ought to have considered the said representation, but without doing so, the detaining authority forwarded the same to the Government, which failure on the part of the detaining authority, in our considered opinion, vitiates the impugned order of detention. In the result, the 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.