Judgment R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 17.6.2008, detaining him as Goonda as contemplated under the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority, by relying on 4 adverse cases apart from the ground case, clamped the above order of detention on the detenu. Adverting to the ground case, the learned counsel would submit that the detaining authority wrongly came to a conclusion that it was a case pertaining to maintenance of Public Order. He points out that the alleged occurrence in the ground case took place at 6 a.m. inside the compound of one Rathinapandi's house where the deceased was working as a security from Ajith Security Service, Madurai; that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence; and that, on the next day, another watchman, who came to relieve the deceased, found him dead and made a call to the owner of the house, who in turn reported the incident to the police, resulting in registration of the case. Under such circumstances, the detaining authority has erroneously come to the conclusion that the detenu was habitually acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order of detention. 4. The detaining authority passed the impugned order of detention relying on four adverse cases, viz., Crime No.703/2007 for the offence u/s. 379 IPC., on the file of Manamadurai Police Station; Crime No.02/2008 u/s.395 IPC., on the file of Singampunari Police Station; Crime No.04/2008 u/s.379 IPC., on the file of the Puluthipatty Police Station and Crime No.02/2008 u/s.457 and 380 IPC., on the file of Thiruppathur Town Police Station. It is stated that though the ground case registered in Crime No.217 of 2007 was for offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC., after investigation, the penal provision came to be altered as one under Section 396 IPC. Admittedly, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place inside the residential premises of one Rathinapandi where the deceased was attending night duty on the particular day. Admittedly, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place inside the residential premises of one Rathinapandi where the deceased was attending night duty on the particular day. The vicinity being a residential place i.e., not a public place/area, it is not known, on what basis, the detaining authority came to the conclusion the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. As rightly pointed out, inasmuch as the alleged occurrence had taken place not in a public place, the Detaining Authority is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the detenu has created a sense of fear and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people in the area. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is a clear non-application of the mind on the part of the detaining authority. 5. Consequently, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.