Judgment : The petitioner, who is the detenu, challenges the order of detention dated 7. 2008 passed by the 2nd respondent detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was identified as a “Goonda”, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 5. 2008, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the adverse cases are concerned,, the offence registered against the detenu is one under Section 379 I.P.C. and insofar as the ground case is concerned, the offence registered against the detenu is under section 392 I.P.C. and therefore, it cannot be said that the detenu is a “habitual offender.” He also submitted that since the offences committed by the detenu are only minor theft offences, which would not in any way be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 4. We have perused the entire materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case Dharpan Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2003) SCC (Cri.) 537. has held as follows: “…..Under the definitions in the Act, it is stated that in the case of “goonda” the acts prejudicial to public order are “when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a goonda which affect, adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order Section 2(a)(iii). The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society; that a solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing for preventive detention.” 5. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences registered against the detenu are only minor theft offences, which had not in any way affected the maintenance of public order. Hence, the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless, his presence is required in connection with any other case.