Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The order dated 27. 2007, passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.347/BDFGISSV/07, branding the detenu, by name Murugan as a Goonda and directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), is challenged in this writ petition by the brother of the detenu. 2. The order of detention dated 27. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 7. 2007, registered in Crime No.373 of 2007 on the file of S.5 Pallavaram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 394 r/w 397, 427 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Javurullah. According to the complainant, when he was proceeding near the junction of Pallavaram Church Road and Santhai Road, the detenu along with two others wrongfully restrained him and demanded money at the knife point and when he refused, the accused forcibly took away Rs.650/- from his shirt pocket and also rushed to stab him when he raised alarm. On hearing the cry, the public came for his rescue, but the accused brandished their knives and also hurled the soda bottles against them, which ended in terror and panic situation at the place and also dislocation of traffic, taking advantage of which, the accused escaped from the spot. Based on the complaint, investigation was taken up, during which, the detenu was arrested and produced before Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who remanded him to judicial custody. 3. The detaining authority, taking note of the above ground case, and also finding that on the earlier occasion, the detenu came to the adverse notice of the authorities of the same police station in connection with Crime No.367 of 2007 registered for the offence under Section 376 IPC., having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation dated 8. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation dated 8. 2007 made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu to the detaining authority, was not at all considered by the detaining authority, which vitiates the impugned order of detention. 5. We have perused the materials placed before us. Concededly, a representation dated 8. 2007 was sent by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu to the detaining authority objecting to the impugned order of detention. This Court is aghast to note that the detaining authority has failed in his statutory duty of disposing of the said representation sent on behalf of the detenu. When the liberty of a person is curtailed, the detaining authority should be more vigilant in justifying his stand that the presence of the person in society is dangerous. The statute mandates that if the detaining authority receives a representation on behalf of the detenu objecting to his order of detention, the same should be considered and disposed of by the detaining authority as expeditiously as possible. Admittedly, in the instant case, the representation dated 8. 2007 was not at all considered and disposed of by the detaining authority. Hence, we are convinced that the non-compliance of the statutory provision by the detaining authority has rendered the detention order itself illegal. In the result, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.