Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention made against him by the second respondent in C.No.62/G/IS/2007, dated 07.09.2007, terming him as Goonda and detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court also scrutinized the order under challenge along with the grounds of detention. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State. 3. Concededly, the petitioner/detenu was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order of detention made by the second respondent, pursuant to the scrutiny of all materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority with regard to 8 adverse cases, which were Crime Nos.189/03 and 220/03 registered by B-10 Selvapuram Police Station, Crime No.2191/05 registered by B-3 Kattoor Police Station and Crime Nos.297/07, 390/07, 400/07, 407/07 and 409/07 registered by B-10 Selvapuram Police Station under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and also a ground case in Crime No.779 of 2007 and also the other connected materials. The Detaining Authority was of the opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and hence he was to be termed as Goonda and further, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was to be made and accordingly, he made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that there was thoroughly non-application of mind on the part of the Authority. In the ground case, the petitioner was arrested on 20.06.2007 and he was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate, No.VII Coimbatore on 21.06.2007. In the remand report, 5 adverse cases were shown and so far as the other cases are concerned, they were not shown. When an explanation was sought for, they were bereft of necessary particulars. In Crime No.390 of 2007, the material objects were produced along with the mahazar in Form 95 and actually, it was produced on 26. 2007 and there was correction that was noted and hence a clarification should have been asked for by the Detaining Authority, but not done so. In Crime No.390 of 2007, the material objects were produced along with the mahazar in Form 95 and actually, it was produced on 26. 2007 and there was correction that was noted and hence a clarification should have been asked for by the Detaining Authority, but not done so. In the order, the Authority has pointed out that no bail application was made in the ground case. Under these circumstances, there was no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail even without filing bail application and thus it was a mere statement made by the Authority even without considering the real situation and hence the order has got to be set aside. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions and made a thorough scrutiny of the materials available. 6. It is not in controversy that the order of detention came to be passed on 07.09.2007, terming the petitioner as Goonda. 8 adverse cases and one ground case were noticed. In the instant case, the ground case was registered on 20.06.2007. The detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on 26. 2007 and subsequently, remand was also made on production. In the instant case, so far as the particulars placed were concerned, no defect is noticed. So far as Crime No.390 of 2007 was concerned, the M.Os were produced on 21.06.2007 along with the mahazar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was correction at the top and a clarification should have been called for. The Court scrutinized the said documents, but at the end of the document, the Officer has signed along with the date. At the top, it is true, there was correction made, but while the other materials are also placed, this correction did not impel the Officer to call for a clarification. Apart from that, all the documents were available pertaining to the arrest and production and the mere correction as found above by itself will not be a ground to set aside the order, since no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the detenu. 7. Apart from that, all the documents were available pertaining to the arrest and production and the mere correction as found above by itself will not be a ground to set aside the order, since no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the detenu. 7. So far as the other ground is concerned, the Detaining Authority has incorporated in its order that I am aware that there is a real possibility of filing a bail application in future in the cases and in that event there is a real possibility to come out on bail in the cases since in similar cases the concerned court or Higher Court grants bail after lapse of certain time. If he comes out on bail, there are possibilities that he will indulge in such activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is true that no bail application was filed in the ground case. But the learned counsel for the State brought to the notice of the Court that either he has come out on bail in respect of some cases or in respect of some cases, charge sheet has been laid and under these circumstances, there was possibility for filing an application for bail. Thus, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the State, the Detaining Authority has actually reproduced the situation as appraised by him. 8. In a case like this, what is all required to be seen by the Court is as to whether there was possibility for the Detaining Authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction by relying upon the materials available. In the instant case, all the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health. After looking into the materials, the Authority has rightly felt that there was compelling necessity to keep him under detention as per the provisions of the Act. The Court is of the considered opinion that no one of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would shake the order under challenge. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.