Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenue – Vijaya, wife of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a Bootlegger and she has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Challenging the above said detention, the husband of the detenue has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the detenue, now detained in Women Special Prison, Vellore under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 7. 2007 on the file of the second respondent herein made in C3.Tha.Ka.Order No.48 of 2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her at liberty. 1. The order of detention dated 7. 2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.350 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1) (aaa), 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The allegation against the detenue was that on 16. 2007 when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ranipet and his police party watched observed villages within the limits of Kaveripakkam Police Station in connection with prohibition offences, they found the detenue pouring white liquid from a plastic can, and on seeing the police party, the person who was standing for consuming escaped from the place. The detenue was arrested and she admitted the offences committed. They seized 360 Litres of poisonous odour country arrack. The samples of arrack seized were sent for chemical analysis and the report of the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vellore reveals that the samples contain 6.9 mgms% w/v of Atropine per 100 ml. a poisonous substance. 2. They seized 360 Litres of poisonous odour country arrack. The samples of arrack seized were sent for chemical analysis and the report of the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vellore reveals that the samples contain 6.9 mgms% w/v of Atropine per 100 ml. a poisonous substance. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the four adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., i. Crime No.923 of 2006 registered on the file of Kaveripakkam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(i)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 212. 2006; ii. Crime No.45 of 2007 registered on the file of Kaveripakkam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(i)(aa) and 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 2. 2007; iii. Crime No.81 of 2007 registered on the file of Kaveripakkam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 22. 2007; and iv. Crime No.157 of 2007 registered on the file of Kaveripakkam Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 24. 2007. 3. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenue is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us. 5. The main ground of attack in this case is that even though the detaining authority passed the detention order only on 7. 2007, the sponsoring authority, even before recommending for detention, had falsely represented before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4630 of 2007 on 26. 2007 itself, that the detenue is likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which shows the pre-determination of mind on the part of the sponsoring authority. 6. The detention order was passed on 7. 2007. But, the sponsoring authority, represented on 26. 2007 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4630 of 2007, a bail petition, that the detenue is likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 6. The detention order was passed on 7. 2007. But, the sponsoring authority, represented on 26. 2007 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4630 of 2007, a bail petition, that the detenue is likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. This, in our considered opinion, would show the predetermination of mind on the part of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority, while passing the order of detention, had failed to take notice of this pre-determined averment made by the sponsoring authority. For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 7. 2007 is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in any other crime. No costs.