Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenging an order of the second respondent made in No.C2/31279/2007, dated 17.07.2007, the petitioner, wife of the detenu, has brought forth this petition before this court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition, the grounds of detention, the order under challenge and the counter affidavit are perused. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Concededly, on the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, placing materials in respect of 5 adverse cases, which were Crime No.536/2005 registered by Brammadesam Police Station, Crime Nos.290/2006 and 972/2006 registered by Tindivanam P.E. Wing, Crime Nos.141/2007 and 206/2007 registered by Brammadesam Police Station under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the other materials and also a ground case in Crime No.867 of 2007 registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of the same, has recorded a finding that it has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order and hence he was to be termed as Bootlegger and further, the Detaining Authority was of the opinion that in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, an order of detention has got to be passed and accordingly, he has passed 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 inter-alia would submit that immediately after the arrest was made, either the arrest made on 22.06.2007 or the detention order made on 17.07.2007 were not informed either to the petitioner, the wife of the detenu or any one of the relatives and under these circumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside. Added further the learned counsel that originally, on arrest, the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on 22.06.2007 and the remand was made till 06.07.2007 and further, it has also been extended till 20.07.2007. A perusal of the order would indicate that the name of the accused was not mentioned. Added further the learned counsel that originally, on arrest, the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on 22.06.2007 and the remand was made till 06.07.2007 and further, it has also been extended till 20.07.2007. A perusal of the order would indicate that the name of the accused was not mentioned. It was also found that it was extended till 20.07.2007, but the order did not speak about when he was actually produced before the court and therefore, in the order of remand, the commencement of extension was not made known. Further, the age of the detenu was found to be different. In Crime No.536 of 2005, the age is mentioned as 33 years, in Crime No.290 of 2006, it was shown as 35 years, in another crime No.972 of 2006, the age was shown as 32 years and in Crime No.141 of 2007, the age was mentioned as 37 years and thus, in all four cases, which were placed before the Detaining Authority, the age is found to be thoroughly different. Under these circumstances, the Detaining Authority should have called for clarification as to how it has happened, but nothing was found and hence it would vitiate the detention order and therefore, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 6. After a perusal of the materials available and considering the submissions made, the court is of the considered opinion that the order of detention has got to be set aside for the following reasons: It is not in controversy that on the strength of 5 adverse cases and one ground case and also looking into the materials available, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned order of detention, terming the detenu as Bootlegger. From the available materials, it could be seen that he was arrested in the ground case on 22.06.2007 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. There was an order of remand till 06.07.2007 and there was an extension of remand on 06.07.2007 till 20.07.2007. From a perusal of the materials, it could be seen that the documents contain all necessary particulars and hence the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. There was an order of remand till 06.07.2007 and there was an extension of remand on 06.07.2007 till 20.07.2007. From a perusal of the materials, it could be seen that the documents contain all necessary particulars and hence the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. So far as the next ground is concerned, it is true that in four adverse cases, the age of the detenu was found to be thoroughly different, namely 33, 35, 32 and 37 years and there was time interval of one year in every case and therefore, the Detaining Authority should have called for clarification, but not done so. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenu was arrested on 22.06.2007 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The law would mandate that one of the close relatives of the detenu should be informed about the custody and extension also. In the instant case, no material was placed before the court that either the petitioner or any one of the close relatives was informed about the arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the arrest was informed to one Mani, son of Raji and he affixed his thumb impression. But, it is pertinent to point out that though it is averred in the counter, there is no material to show that how the said person, on whom the factum of arrest of the detenu was informed, was connected to the family of the detenu. When the law would expect that the factum of arrest should be informed to any one of the close relatives, so that they can be put on notice, there was no satisfactory answer from the respondents side and even in the course of the counter, the State is unable to explain who is Mani, how he is related to the family of the detenu and these facts were not made known. Therefore, the service upon the third party would not satisfy the legal requirements. Under these circumstances, all the reasons stated above, in the opinion of the Court, would be sufficient to set aside the order. 8. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Therefore, the service upon the third party would not satisfy the legal requirements. Under these circumstances, all the reasons stated above, in the opinion of the Court, would be sufficient to set aside the order. 8. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.