Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus challenges an order of the first respondent, dated 211. 2007 made in C2/51091/2007, whereby one Raman, the husband of the petitioner, was termed as Bootlegger and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 for the reasons stated therein. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also made a scrutiny of the order under challenge. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the contentions. 3. The Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority in respect of 3 adverse cases, namely Crime Nos.128/2006, 41/2007 and 132/2007 registered by Kariyalur Police Station and also one ground case in Crime No.137/2007 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and the other materials placed, formed an opinion that he has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order and hence he has got to be termed as Bootlegger and also in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, he should be detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and therefore, he has passed an order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel, pointing out the relevant part of the order, would contend that in the grounds of detention, the third adverse case and the ground case were taken into consideration, but the other two adverse cases were not pointed out therein. Admittedly, there were three adverse cases. Further, the detenu was remanded till 111. 2007, but the order came to be passed on 211. 2007. It was pointed out by the Sponsoring Authority that the remand was extended till 211. 2007 in the ground case, but no material was placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. The petitioner has asked for a copy of such a remand extension order by a representation, dated 11. 2008, but it was not given. Thus, it would be quite clear that the Sponsoring Authority never placed any material before the Detaining Authority nor has he supplied the remand extension order to the detenu. The petitioner has asked for a copy of such a remand extension order by a representation, dated 11. 2008, but it was not given. Thus, it would be quite clear that the Sponsoring Authority never placed any material before the Detaining Authority nor has he supplied the remand extension order to the detenu. Thus, the first part would indicate the non application of mind and the second part would be the denial of valuable right of the petitioner for making effective representation. 5. Added further the learned counsel that so far as the bail application was concerned, the translated version was supplied, but the Tamil translated version contained different crime number and thus, it was not properly translated and therefore, it did not serve the purpose for which the translated copy was given to him. Further, the learned counsel took the court to the translated copy of the order of remand made by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, but it was a misleading one and the same would be sufficient to set aside the order under challenge. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 7. After looking into the materials available and hearing the submissions made, the court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge has got to be quashed for the following reasons: It is not in controversy that the order under challenge came to be passed by the Detaining Authority on 211. 2007 on the strength of 3 adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case was actually Crime No.137 of 2007. Further remand was actually given in ground case till 111. 2007 and materials were also available. So far as the remand extension made till 211. 2007, as stated by the Sponsoring Authority, is concerned, no materials were placed. It is pertinent to point out that the order under challenge came to be passed on 211. 2007. Under these circumstances, a duty was cast upon the Detaining Authority to know whether there was any extension of remand from 111. 2007 till 211. 2007, as contended by the Sponsoring Authority. In the absence of any acceptable material, showing the extension of remand till 211. 2007, the Detaining Authority should have called for necessary material in order to record so, but not done so. 8. 2007 till 211. 2007, as contended by the Sponsoring Authority. In the absence of any acceptable material, showing the extension of remand till 211. 2007, the Detaining Authority should have called for necessary material in order to record so, but not done so. 8. It is further to be pointed out that post-detention representation was made by the petitioner on 19.01.2008, calling for such remand extension order, but it was not supplied. Hence at the time when the detention order was passed, no material was available as to the remand extension order till 211. 2007, since it was not placed. Further, a copy of the same was also not served upon the detenu, as asked for in the representation. Thus, it would go to show the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and also the non supply of the copy of extension order, it was nothing but deprivation of valuable right of the petitioner to make an effective representation. 9. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, proper translation of bail application was not given, as could be seen from pages 91 and 92 of the booklet. Further, the translation of remand extension order was thoroughly a misleading one. The object for giving the translated copy to the detenu was to make him understand the contents of the order or the document, which is in the language not conversant to him. Under these circumstances, if the translated version in Tamil, to which the detenu was conversant, was given in such a way not only misleading, but also keeping him in darkness, the object for which it was given would be defeated. It cannot be said to be the mistake that crept in, but it was the denial of valuable right of the parties. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is a case where the impugned order has got to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.