Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.15/2007 dated 28. 2007 whereby the detenu who is the petitioner herein was termed as a Goonda and detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The order under challenge is also perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 3. Concededly, on the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, placing particulars in respect of 2 adverse cases registered in Crime No. 475/2006 of Tiruvallur Town Police Station under Section 399 IPC and in Crime No.229 of 2007 of Vengal Police Station under Section 392 of IPC and also a ground case in Crime No. 231 of 2007 under Sections 336, 384,506(ii) IPC and other materials also, the detaining authority has recorded that it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the materials available to record a finding that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace and hence he was to be termed as Goonda and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, a necessity arose to pass an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: The order of detention came to be passed on 28. 2007 on the strength of two adverse cases and one ground case. The detenu was arrested on 8. 2007 and in the second adverse case and the ground case, remand report was filed and he was also remanded to Judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate concerned in respect of both cases on the very same day and he has also moved for bail in both the cases and they were dismissed. But a reading of the order under challenge would clearly indicate that the detaining authority has pointed out that the detenu has moved bail in Cr.No.231 of 2007 of Vengal Police Station and the said bail application was dismissed on 18. 2007, but there was real possibility of filing bail application and being enlarged on bail by the Court and thus there arose necessity to pass an order of detention. 2007, but there was real possibility of filing bail application and being enlarged on bail by the Court and thus there arose necessity to pass an order of detention. Further added learned counsel that while there were two cases registered, the second adverse case and ground case and in respect of which, remand report was filed and remand was also made and thereafter bail applications were made and the same were dismissed, all the materials were not placed before the detaining authority and the authority has pointed out only the order referring the dismissal of the bail application in the ground case, and not the other adverse case and thus it would be quite clear that all the materials were neither placed nor considered by the sponsoring authority in order to consider by the detaining authority and hence the detention order has to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made and looked into the materials available. Concededly, the order under challenge terming the detenu as Goonda came to be passed on 28. 2007. On a perusal it was not clear that the sponsoring authority has placed the materials pertaining to two adverse cases and one ground case which are referred to in the order. It is further pointed out that while the authority has clearly pointed out that the detenu was arrested in both the cases on 8. 2007 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned along with the remand report in respect of both the cases and he was also remanded so. It is also not in controversy that the bail applications were filed in both the cases and which were dismissed. But the materials were placed before the detaining authority in respect of the order that was passed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned in Crl.M.P.No.2062 of 2007 viz., the ground case alone was placed, but no material pertaining to bail application and the order made in this application for bail in the other adverse case were not placed. Under such circumstances, the materials were not placed in the hands of the sponsoring authority. Hence, the detaining authority had no occasion to look into the same. Under such circumstances, the materials were not placed in the hands of the sponsoring authority. Hence, the detaining authority had no occasion to look into the same. It is pertinent to point out that when the order came to be passed on the strength of two adverse cases and one ground case, necessity arose for calling for clarification from the authority whether he applied for bail in all the three cases and what happened to bail applications, should have been made clear, but from a reading of the order under challenge, it is clear that materials in respect of bail application in the ground case alone was placed, but not on the other cases for which subjective satisfaction could not have been arrived at when all the materials were not placed. The statement made in the order that the subjective satisfaction was actually arrived at by the detaining authority was merely a statement usually made without applying its mind and all the materials required to be placed are not placed before the authority. Hence, the order has got to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.15/2007 dated 27.08.2007, The detenu, namely, Britto @ Peter @ Arun, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.