Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent passed in Memo No.21/BDFGISV/2007 dated 210. 2007 whereby one Nagaraj, the detenu 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. The respondent, detaining authority has passed the order on scrutiny of the available materials in respect of three adverse cases namely Crime No.29/2007 registered for offence under Section 379 I.P.C. on the file of Kadambathur Police Station, Crime No.583/2007 registered for offence under Section 379 I.P.C. on the file of Tiruvallur Town Police Station, Crime No.519/2007 registered for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. on the file of the Pallavaram Police Station and also the ground case in Crime No.200/2007 registered for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. on the file of Kadambathur Police Station and other materials. The Detaining Authority after arriving at subjective satisfaction, that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace has termed the detenu as Goonda and 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. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, on 29. 2007 the ground case was registered in Crime No.200/2007 under Section 397 I.P.C. The order of detention came to be passed on 210. 2007 on the materials placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. When the matters were placed all necessary particulars were neither placed by the sponsoring authority nor they were looked into by the detaining authority. The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur on 110. 2007 on the materials placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. When the matters were placed all necessary particulars were neither placed by the sponsoring authority nor they were looked into by the detaining authority. The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur on 110. 2007 along with the requisition for extension of remand and in that requisition two crime numbers were mentioned i.e., Crime No.29/2007 for offence under section 379 I.P.C. and Crime No.200/2007 for the offence under section 397 I.P.C. and actually, the order of remand was extended till 210. 2007. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the order of detention would state as follows: "I am aware that Nagaraj has been remanded to Judicial Custody by the Judicial Magistrate Tiruvallur on 29. 2007 and lodged in Central Prison Puzhal as per the Kadambathur Police Station Cr.No.200/2007 and his remand period is upto 110. 2007 and was further extended upto 210. 2007." From the very reading of the above, it is quite clear that both the crime numbers were not stated. Crime number in respect of adverse case is not referred but only the crime number of the ground case is referred to. Thus, the authority has not applied his mind. Added further learned counsel, in the instant case, the ground case was actually registered under Section 397 I.P.C. and it is only a solitary incident and that too, a matter of robbery and it would not satisfy to invoke the provision of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. In support of the contention learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 313 (Darpan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu). Thirdly, no where in the F.I.R. of the adverse cases or in the ground case, it is stated that public tranquillity was disturbed or the social order was disturbed. As such, the finding recorded by the authority that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace was not correct. Even without any basis, the instant order has been passed and even assuming that the detenu has committed the offence of theft and robbery, it cannot be stated that these thing will disturb the public peace and tranquillity. Hence, the order of detention has been passed without any basis which has got to be set aside. 5. Even without any basis, the instant order has been passed and even assuming that the detenu has committed the offence of theft and robbery, it cannot be stated that these thing will disturb the public peace and tranquillity. Hence, the order of detention has been passed without any basis which has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority along with the materials in respect of three adverse and one ground case as referred above, the detaining authority has passed the order, terming the petitioner as Goonda after recording that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order. After perusal of the order, it is seen the authorities were perfectly correct in coming to such a conclusion, for the simple reason that there are three offences of theft and the fourth offence is robbery and the detenu was continuously doing such offence that too in public places and actually the public security was in peril. Therefore, the findings recorded by the authority has got to be sustained. In so far as the second point is concerned that it was a single incident of robbery and hence he cannot detained under Goondas Act has to be rejected for the simple reason it was not a single robbery but three adverse cases were also noticed and they were also recorded. 7. The next point that there was discrepancy found in the mentioning of the adverse case in the requisition when the petitioner was brought before the Court for extension of remand is concerned, the Court is of the considered opinion that the grave offence under section 397 I.P.C. Has been pointed out, the authority has not pointed out the other offence of adverse case. It is pertinent to point out that no separate remand order was obtained, both the crime numbers were found in the same requisition letter and the extension of remand was sought for and the same was ordered. Under such circumstances, the petitioner should have the knowledge about the same. Under such circumstances, the non-mentioning of the adverse case number in the requisition for extension of remand will not cause prejudice to the detenu. Under such circumstances, the petitioner should have the knowledge about the same. Under such circumstances, the non-mentioning of the adverse case number in the requisition for extension of remand will not cause prejudice to the detenu. Hence, the order has got to be sustained. 8. The Court is unable to notice any merit whatsoever in this petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.