Judgment : Per P. D. DINAKARAN, J. 1. The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Easwaran brother of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that he said detenu is a Bootlegger and he 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 Piarates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Challenging the above said detention the brother of the detenu has come forward with the present habeas Corpurs Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in C3. D.O.No. 67/2007, dated 3.8.2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, now confined at Cen-tral Prison, Vellore before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3.1 The order of detention dated 3.8.2007 was passed on the basis of ground casein Crime No. 801 of 1007 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (i), 4(1) (aaa) and 4(1-A) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, based on the complaint of the Inayathullah, who consumed liquor purchased from the detenuy and felt burning sensation in eyes and stomach, vomited and fell down. After investigation the detenu was arrested and the contraband was seized. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and report reveals that the sample of arrack contained 6.5% mg of Atropine per 100 ml and the same would endanger life. 3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of nice adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. Crime Nos. 766 and 1196 of 2006 and 299 of 2007 on the file of Tirupattur Taluk Police Station and Crime Nos. 268 and 311 of 2006 on the file of Kurusilapattu Police Station all for the offences of alike nature. 3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging inactivities 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. 268 and 311 of 2006 on the file of Kurusilapattu Police Station all for the offences of alike nature. 3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging inactivities 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 3.8.2007, the sponsoring authority, even before recommending for detention, had represented before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl. M.P.No. 5614 of 2006 on 2.8.2007 itself, that the detenu is likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which shown the predetermination of mind on the part of the sponsoring authority. 6. The detention order was passed on 3.8.2007. But, the sponsoring authority, represented on 2.8.2007 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P. No. 5614 of 2007, a bail petition, that the detenu is likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2982. 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 predetermined averment made by the sponsoring authority. 7. 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 3.8.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in any other crime. No costs.