Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Chandru @ Chandrasekar. He has been branded as Goonda and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the second respondent by means of his proceedings dated 11. 2008. He came to the adverse notice of the police in Crime No.399 of 2002 on the file of Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem registered under Sections 147, 148 & 324 IPC. The second adverse case is one in Crime No.428 of 2007 on the file of Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem registered under Sections 392 & 307 IPC. The ground case is one in Crime No.430 of 2007 on the file of the same police station registered under Sections 392, 427 & 506(ii) IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. R. Subadra Devi has strenuously contended that the arrest of the petitioners husband was neither intimated to the petitioner nor to any of the relatives or known persons as per law. She draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-3 of the detention order, in which it has been categorically stated that the Inspector of Police informed the family members about the reasons for the arrest and also informed Tmt. Rajarajeswari, W/o Chandrasekar about the reasons for the arrest of her husband and recorded their acknowledgments in the arrest memo. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran also pointed out the denial contained in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, which goes to the effect that initially the arrest of the detenu in the ground case was informed to Tmt. Rajarajeswari, the wife of the detenu on 112. 2007 through the arrest memo. But the booklet produced by the second respondent does not contain the above said alleged arrest memo. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor took time to verify and peruse the records to ascertain whether the arrest memo is available among the records. But today, he represented before the Court that such arrest memo is not at all available in the records. 4. The reason for intimation as to the arrest of the detenu has been incorporated in the procedure to satisfy the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in order to make an effective representation. But today, he represented before the Court that such arrest memo is not at all available in the records. 4. The reason for intimation as to the arrest of the detenu has been incorporated in the procedure to satisfy the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in order to make an effective representation. If such a requirement is not at all fulfilled by the authorities concerned, then the order passed by them would suffer from illegality. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the authorities concerned have miserably failed to intimate the reasons and the fact of arrest of the detenu in the ground case either to his relatives or to any known person which is having the effect of nullifying the detention order passed by the second respondent. In other words, the said lapse on the part of the authorities concerned would vitiate the detention order, which is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 11. 2008 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.