Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner is mother of the detenu by name Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan. He has been branded as Black Marketeer and clamped under Detention Order dated 25.03.2008 by the second respondent. 2. He came to adverse notice of police in Cr.No.524 of 2007 with respect to the occurrence held on 8. 2007, under clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The ground case was registered in Civil Supplies CID, Virudhunagar Cr.No.528 of 2007 under clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with regard to the alleged occurrence on 8. 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.R. Subhadra Devi would contend that a reading of the Detention Order would clearly show the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. She has pointed out a portion in paragraph 5 of the Detention Order which reads as follows: "5. I am aware that the respondent Thiru. Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan was remanded upto 4. 2008 and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai on 23. 2008 in connection with Virudhunagar Civil Supplies CID Unit Cr.No.206/2008 and he had moved bail petition in Cr.M.P.No.671/08 before Judicial Magistrate No.1 (incharge) Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram on 24.03.2008 and it is pending. It is very likely that he may come out on bail by filing bail application before the same or High Court. If he comes out on bail he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of Essential Commodities to the public." When the bail application filed by the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram was pending, without properly applying his mind, the detaining authority has mentioned that he is likely to come out on bail by filing another bail application. This Court on earlier occasions, has taken consistent view that while an application for bail is pending, stating as if the detenu would come out on bail by filing another application which is very likely, is nothing but the outcome of the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The view has been taken in more than one occasions. In the orders passed in H.C.P.No.572 of 2006 [Jayalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another], dated 28. The view has been taken in more than one occasions. In the orders passed in H.C.P.No.572 of 2006 [Jayalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another], dated 28. 2006, H.C.P.No.207 of 2008 [Sumathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another] dated 30.06.2008 (in which one of us constituted the Coram) and H.C.P.174 of 2008 [Smt. Bagyavathi vs. District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram and another] (decision rendered by us), this Court the analysed identical situations and held that it is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. Considering the above, the Detention Order impugned has to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 25.03.2008 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.