JUDGMENT P. D. DINAKARAN, J. The Second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against Robert Raja, son of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under 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). 2.1. The order of detention dated 26.11.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case registered in Crime No. 838 of 2007 on the file of Ambattur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 506(2), I.P.C., Complaint of which was given by one Murali. According to the complainant, on 25.10.2007, when he was proceeding near Murugan Theatre, the detenu wrongfully restrained him at the point of knife and threatened him to give money. When the complainant refused by saying he was not having money, the detenu rushed to stab him and voluntarily inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of the complainant and took away. Rs.150/- and cell phone. When the complainant raised hue and cry, the public came for his rescue, but the detenu threatened them at the point of knife. The public feared danger and ran for safer places. Taking advantage of the panic situation, the detenu escaped. Based on the above said complainant, investigation was taken up and the detenu was arrested and remanded. 2.2. Apart from the above, the Detaining Authority also took note of three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos. 275 of 2002 and 398 of 2007 on the file of Velipalayam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 294(b), 323 and 427, I.P.C.; and Crime No. 600 of 2007 on the file of Ambattur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 379, I.P.C. 2.3. The Detaining Authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activites which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order. 3. Challenging the said detention, the mother of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a Writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2007 in his office Ref. 3. Challenging the said detention, the mother of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a Writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2007 in his office Ref. No.402/BDFGISSV/2007 against the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and to set his at liberty. 4. There is no representation of behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. Mr. N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosector, based on the materials available on record, fairly concedes that even though the detenu, according to the grounds of detention, was arrested with reference to the ground case on 25.10.2007, in his representation dated 4.1.2008, he has specifically averred that he was arrested on 24.10.2007 and kept under illegal custody for one day, but the Government, while disposing of the said representation by proceedings dated 22.1.2008 has not dealt with the said one day illegal detention. 6. From the above facts, it is clear that the Government while rejecting the representation of the detenu dated 4.1.2008, by proceedings dated 22.1.2008 has not considered the ground raised by the detenu that he was arrested on 25.10.2007 itself and was illegally detained for one day. This failure to consider the said vital aspect as to the date of detention vitiates the detention of the detenu. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside. This detenu is directed to be set at liberty, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.