Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. Petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 22. 2007, passed against her son, S.Mani @ Manikandan, by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.60/2007, 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 order of detention dated 22. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 2. 2007 at 10.15 hours. When the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to P.1 Pulianthope police station was attending his work in the station, on hearing the information about the presence of the detenu, who is an absconding accused in Crime No.30 of 2007, is standing at the junction of Pulianthope High Road and Kutti Thambiran Street, he rushed to the spot along with the police party. On noticing the police party, the detenu tried to flee the spot. However, the police party surrounded them and tried to apprehend him. But, the detenu went on a violent spree and hurled soda bottles, which scattered all over the road and thus created panic in the minds of the public. However, in the melee, the detenu was apprehended at the spot by the police party. A case was registered in Crime No.130 of 2007 under Sections 341, 353, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. 3. Taking into consideration the above said ground case as well as three 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 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though a specific plea has been taken in the representation given by the mother of the detenu that the detenu was arrested on 2. 2007 at 10.00 p.m. itself, arrest has been shown on 2. 2007. Though the Government, in its rejection order dated, has dealt with all the contentions raised in the representation of the detenu, it has not touched upon the vital aspect of arrest on 2. 2007. 2007 at 10.00 p.m. itself, arrest has been shown on 2. 2007. Though the Government, in its rejection order dated, has dealt with all the contentions raised in the representation of the detenu, it has not touched upon the vital aspect of arrest on 2. 2007. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of clarification by the Government on this vital aspect, the detention order gets vitiated. 5. With reference to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have verified the records. It is seen that the mother of the detenu had sent a representation dated 3. 2007 stating that her son was taken by the police on 2. 2007 at 10.00 p.m. and on the next day itself, a false case had been registered in Cr.No.130/2007. When such a specific plea has been taken by the mother of the detenu, a duty is cast upon the State to clarify the same, more so, when the rejection order has been passed touching upon all other contentions raised in the representation, which in our view, vitiates the order of detention. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.