Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by the second respondent on 310. 2007, terming him as a Goonda and detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side and also looked into the materials available along with the grounds of detention. 3. Concededly, on the strength of 3 adverse cases, namely Crime No.526/2007 registered by Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.158/2007 registered by Muthandikuppam Police Station and Crime No.524/2007 registered by Neyveli Township Police Station, in which materials are placed and one ground case in Crime No.527 of 2007 registered by Neyveli Township Police Station, the Detaining Authority on scrutiny of those materials and the other available materials, formed an opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he was to be declared as Goonda and further, in order to prevent him from doing such activities in future, he should be detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. Accordingly, he made an order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his sincere attempt of assailing the order under challenge, would submit that on the strength of 3 adverse cases and one ground case, the petitioner has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/82, but when the copies were served upon him, as could be seen in the booklet pages 112, 116, 118 and 119, though Crime No.527 of 2007 was mentioned, when the Authority has mentioned the provisions of law under which the case was registered, Section 294 IPC was omitted invariably in all pages. Had the Detaining Authority looked into the same, he should have called for clarification in this regard, but not done so. 5. The learned counsel would further add that a perusal of the order would clearly indicate that the Authority has stated in the marginal note the third adverse case Crime No.524 of 2007, but when details were given, the crime number was mentioned as 527 of 2007, which also requires clarification, but the Detaining Authority has failed to do so. Thirdly, in the ground case, there was no bail application filed at all. Thirdly, in the ground case, there was no bail application filed at all. The Detaining Authority has pointed out in its order that no bail application was also filed, but further it was averred that there was possibility of making bail application in future and he would be let on bail and thus, it was only an impression in the mind of the Authority concerned even without any basic materials and under these circumstances, it was taken as a mere statement as usual. Hence it had no basis and therefore, there was no application of mind at all. The learned counsel would further add that after arrest was made, no relative was informed about the same and in page 124 of the booklet, it was mentioned that the arrest was informed to one P.Kathirvel, but whether he is relative or a third party to the petitioner remained unknown. The petitioner had no relative as Kathirvel. Added further the learned counsel that in the description of the relatives in page 121, it is mentioned that he had mother and a daughter only but, nowhere the name of Kathirvel is found as relative and under these circumstances, there was actually no intimation at all as to the factum of arrest. Thus, all would go to show that there was not only lack of application of mind, but also the order is infirm and hence it has got to be set aside. 6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 7. A thorough scrutiny of the materials available and also the consideration of the submissions made, the court is of the considered opinion that the order has got to be set aside for the following reasons: It is not in controversy that the order came to be passed on 310. 2007 on the strength of the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority. From a reading of the order, it could be seen that there were three adverse cases and one ground case. Crime No.527 of 2007 was registered on 110. 2007, which was shown as the ground case. But when the materials were scrutinized carefully, though the crime number was found in different documents, namely the remand report and confessional statement, as found in pages 112, 116, 118 and 119, Section 294 IPC was omitted invariably in all pages. Crime No.527 of 2007 was registered on 110. 2007, which was shown as the ground case. But when the materials were scrutinized carefully, though the crime number was found in different documents, namely the remand report and confessional statement, as found in pages 112, 116, 118 and 119, Section 294 IPC was omitted invariably in all pages. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the third adverse case, the crime number is mentioned in the marginal note as Crime No.524 of 2007, but when the details were given in the inner side, the crime number was mentioned as 527/2007 and hence it warrants clarification, but the Authority concerned has neither called for clarification nor referred to in the order. 8. Apart from that, the arrest was not informed to any of the relatives and no material was placed to accept the case of the State that the arrest was informed to any one of the relatives within a reasonable time. In the instant case, as found in page 124 of the booklet, the arrest was informed to one P.Kathirvel. But, in page 121 of the booklet, it was mentioned that the detenu had mother and a daughter, but it does not refer to the name P.Kathirvel as found in page 124. In the absence of any material placed that an intimation was given after the arrest was made, the court is unable to agree with the contention put forth by the State. Thus, proper intimation as to the factum of arrest to any one of the relatives was not given. All would go to show that there was not only non application of mind, but also lack of proper consideration of materials, which in the opinion of the Court would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention. 9. 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.