Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent dated 30.11.2007, made in No.416/BDFGISSV/2007 whereby one Dayalan the husband of the petitioner herein, was detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. All the materials placed in the hands of the Court and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. 3. Admittedly, on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in two cases one in H1 Washermenpet PS Crime No.154/2005 which is shown as the adverse case, and the other in Crime No.797 of 2007 of the very same Police Station, which is shown as the ground case, the detaining authority after looking into the materials available, has recorded a finding that he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the said Dayalan were prejudicial to the social order and also the peace, and under such circumstances, he has got to be termed as goonda, and in order to prevent him from doing any such further activities, a necessity arose to pass an order of detention under the provisions of Act 14/82, and hence, made the order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prince Premkumar would make the following submissions. A reading of the order under challenge would clearly indicate that there was thoroughly non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The learned Counsel took the Court to page 2 of the order under challenge wherein it reads "Tmt. Sindhu, female, aged 26, w/o Ravi @ Ravikumar, is residing at No.3, Anna Colony, South Mada Veethi, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai 19. Tmt. Sindhu is residing at the above address with her husband. Already during the year 2000, Tvl. Hari @ Haribabu, Saravanan and others attempted to murder Thiru Ravi @ Ravikumar and in this regard, a case in H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.1312/2000 was registered." 5. Tmt. Sindhu is residing at the above address with her husband. Already during the year 2000, Tvl. Hari @ Haribabu, Saravanan and others attempted to murder Thiru Ravi @ Ravikumar and in this regard, a case in H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.1312/2000 was registered." 5. The learned Counsel pointing to the above part of the order, would further add that the detenu was never involved in the said crime; but, when the materials in the said case were placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority, it was also looked into, which was thoroughly irrelevant for consideration. 6. Added further, the learned Counsel that the arrest was actually made in the instant case as per the special report placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, on 20.10.2007; but, page 82 of the booklet would indicate that the arrest was made on 210. 2007, and thus, this discrepancy requires a clarification to be called for which the authority failed to do so; that further in the order, it was recorded that there was an incident that had taken place just a week prior to 111. 2007; but, actually, the petitioner was arrested on 20.10.2007, and no incident had taken place as mentioned on that date; but, the incident had taken place even as per the police report only on 110. 2007, and thus, this discrepancy is also noticed by the detaining authority. 7. Lastly the learned Counsel would add that a perusal of the order dated 30.11.2007, would clearly speak about the extension of remand from 111. 2007; that nowhere it speaks about whether the detenu was actually in custody or not on the date of the order under challenge namely 30.11.2007; that a representation was made by the petitioner on 1. 2008 calling for the explanation in this regard pointing out the same; but, nothing has turned out; and that all these would clearly indicate that the order is infirm and illegal which has got to be set aside. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. It is not in controversy that the order came to be passed on 30.11.2007, on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority placing the materials as to one ground case and one adverse case as found in the order. 9. It is not in controversy that the order came to be passed on 30.11.2007, on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority placing the materials as to one ground case and one adverse case as found in the order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, all the details now brought to the notice of the Court were thoroughly not taken into consideration by the detaining authority. It would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. As rightly contended by the petitioners Counsel, two cases were shown one ground case and the other as adverse case. Another case shown in Crime No.1312 of 2000 was not at all one in which the detenu was involved. In such circumstances, the materials were placed by the sponsoring authority for the reasons best known to them. 10. Secondly, actually the arrest was made, according to the arrest card, on 210. 2007, as could be seen from page 82 of the booklet. But, when the arrest is mentioned in the special report, it is shown as 20.10.2007, and the detaining authority has not looked into this matter. Further, it is pointed out in the order that one week prior to 111. 2007, the occurrence has taken place; but, he was actually arrested on 211. 2007, as per the arrest card. He never came out on bail. In such circumstances, no incident could have taken place one week prior to 111. 2007. 11. Added circumstance, the last one, is that when the authority passed the order on 30.11.2007, he should have made certain whether he was on bail or under remand; but, he has not done so. On the contrary, he has pointed out that the detenu was remanded from 111. 2007 onwards and on the day namely 30.11.2007, when the order was passed, whether the detenu was inside or outside was not made known. Despite a representation made on 1. 2008, it was also not taken into consideration. All the above, no doubt, would clearly indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which, in the opinion of the Court, would suffice to quash the order. 12. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed quashing the order of the first respondent. 2008, it was also not taken into consideration. All the above, no doubt, would clearly indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which, in the opinion of the Court, would suffice to quash the order. 12. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed quashing the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.