Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in C.O.C.No.69/2007 dated 112. 2007 whereby one Bhagavathi @ Singaravelu, the husband of the petitioner was termed as Goonda and detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petitioner is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. The order under challenge along with the grounds are also perused. 3. Concededly, the order of detention came to be passed by the second respondent, Detaining Authority on the strength of the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority along with the materials pertaining to Crime No.100/2007 registered by Keelaiyur Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(b) I.P.C. @ 148, 120, 120(b), 450, 342, 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. as an adverse case and also the materials pertaining to Crime No.524/2007 registered by Velankanni Police Station under Section 294(b), 385, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992 and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act 1959 as ground case and other materials. 4. The Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction, on scrutiny of the materials available, that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and hence he has got to be termed as Goonda. Further, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, a necessity arose to detain him under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence an order of detention was passed. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this court. 5. Advancing argumentsin support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the instant case, the detention order came to be passed by the detaining authority when materials were supplied in respect of one ground case and one adverse case. The ground case was registered in Crime No.524/2007 under sections 294(b), 385, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992 and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act 1959. The arrest was made on 112. 2007. The detenu was sent to remand as per the arrest card on 112. The ground case was registered in Crime No.524/2007 under sections 294(b), 385, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992 and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act 1959. The arrest was made on 112. 2007. The detenu was sent to remand as per the arrest card on 112. 2007 but the order of judicial remand was made by the Judicial Magistrate concerned as could be seen at page 41 of the booklet is only on 112. 2007 and thus, there was discrepancy and the Detaining Authority before passing the detention order should have called for clarification but failed to do so. A representation was made on 212. 2007 but the order of rejection was served upon the detenu only on 3. 2008 after long lapse of time. There was inordinate delay which was unexplained. Added further learned counsel that after arrest, as per the legal mandate, the close relatives of the detenu should be informed but in the instant case, no one was informed about the factum of arrest which causes infirmity to the detention order. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the State on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. After doing so, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of detention has got to be quashed for the following reasons. 7. It is not in controversy that the order of detention came to be passed on 112. 2007 on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority on one ground case in Crime No.524/2007 as referred to above and one adverse case. As could be seen from page 32 booklet, he was arrested on 112. 2007 and also produced before the Court. As per the remand order made by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, it seen that the remand was made on 112. 2007. There is discrepancy. Under such circumstances, clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority but he has not done so. Secondly, the mandate law is that when a person is arrested in connection with criminal case, one of his relative should be informed about the cause of arrest. In the instant case, no material is placed before the Court that this legal requirement is satisfied. Secondly, the mandate law is that when a person is arrested in connection with criminal case, one of his relative should be informed about the cause of arrest. In the instant case, no material is placed before the Court that this legal requirement is satisfied. It is seen that one Samarasam was informed but nowhere it is stated that the said Samarasam is the relative of the detenu. 8. As far as the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly a representation was made on 212. 2007 but the order of rejection was served only on 3. 2008. According to the available materials placed in the hands of the Court by the respondent side, it is seen that the representation was received on 212. 2007 by the authority and remarks were called on 212. 2007 and the reminder dated 1. 2008 was actually received on 22. 2008. Thus, there was a long delay of nearly about 40 days. This long delay remains unexplained. So long as the delay is unexplained, the delay is unreasonable which would cause prejudice to the arrest of the detenu. 9. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is a case where the order of detention 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.