Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This Writ Application challenges the order of the second respondent made in Detention Order No.13/2008 dated 16.6.2008, whereby the petitioner's son, E.Ganesan was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a “Goonda”. 2. The Court heard Mr. V.Thirumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, looked into the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu, E.Ganesan was involved in three adverse cases viz., in Crime No.614/2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302 IPC registered in Sempatty Police Station; Crime No.1018/2007 under Section 379 IPC registered in Dindigul Town North Police Station; and Crime No.1092/2007 under Sections 457, 511 @ 457, 380 IPC registered in Dindigul Town North Police Station and in one ground case in Crime No.148/2008 under Section 397 IPC registered in Ammayanaickanur Police Station, after going into the entire the materials pertaining to the cases referred to above, the detaining authority formed his opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 terming him as a “Goonda” and accordingly, made the order, which is the subject matter of challenge. 4. Mr. V.Thirumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his sincere attempt assailing the order, brought to the notice of the Court, the following grounds:- (i) Firstly, the ground case was registered in Crime No.148/2008 for the occurrence that took place on 9.5.2008 and he was also arrested on the same day under Section 397 of the I.P.C.,. He made a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.836/2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and the same was dismissed on 3.6.2008. At that time, it was strongly opposed by the State that steps were taken to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 in order to detain him as a “Goonda”. Thus, it would be quite clear that the sponsoring authority prejudged the matter and also placed his submission accordingly that detention order was likely to be passed. At that time, it was strongly opposed by the State that steps were taken to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 in order to detain him as a “Goonda”. Thus, it would be quite clear that the sponsoring authority prejudged the matter and also placed his submission accordingly that detention order was likely to be passed. Under the circumstances, it would suffice to set aside the order of detention. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ganesan v. State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai and another [2005 M.L.J (Crl.) 467]. (ii) Insofar as the ground case, which was registered in Crime No.148/2008, was for a single alleged incident of robbery that had taken place in a brick-kiln in a village where only four or five persons were involved in making bricks and hence, it cannot be stated to have committed in the public place and affected the maintenance of public order and under the circumstances, showing the ground case as one of the reasons to invoke the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 was not at all warranted. (iii) Thirdly, as per the materials available in the ground case in Crime No.148/2008, out of 3 items, the subject matter of robbery, one was a 500 rupee currency note. The recovery would indicate Currency Note No.JCS 267415 whereas Form No.95 actually sent to the Court would indicate the number of currency as OED 485993. Thus, one of the material objects was actually found to be different. If to be so, a clarification should have been sought for by the detaining authority but not done so. This is also indicative of the fact of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. (iv) Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the discrepancy found in the F.I.R. and A.R.Copy would affect the order under challenge. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration. 6. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.148/2008 and it is also not in controversy that he was arrested on 9.5.2008. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration. 6. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.148/2008 and it is also not in controversy that he was arrested on 9.5.2008. When he moved for bail before the concerned Court, it was strongly opposed by the State stating that the detenu was likely to be detained under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 terming him as a “Goonda” at the time even before the order of detention came to be passed. It would be clearly indicative of the fact that the sponsoring authority prejudged the matter and placed the same and it would also be indicative of the mental frame of the mind of the sponsoring authority that the detenu would be detained under the Act 14/1982. Under the circumstances, it would affect the order of detention. 7. Further, added circumstances is the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. According to the allegation made in the ground case in Crime No.148/2008, a 500 rupee note was recovered and as per the “Athatchi” found in page No.145 in the booklet, the currency note contained No.JCS 267415 but when it was sent along with form 95 to the Court, the number of currency note was mentioned as OED 485993. If to be so, there is a vital difference in the property. It could be stated that there is a material discrepancy. Under the circumstances, the detaining authority should have called for a clarification. Under the circumstances, it is nothing but non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the alleged occurrence in the ground case had taken place in a brick-kiln in a village. It is not in controversy that in the brick-kiln, a few persons were working but the detaining authority has observed that the act of the detenu would affect the public peace. In the instant case, the incident had taken place in a brick-kiln in a village. The Court cannot take it as the occurrence would affect maintenance of public order and thus, it cannot be a ground to detain him under the Act 14/1982 as a “Goonda”. 9. In the instant case, the incident had taken place in a brick-kiln in a village. The Court cannot take it as the occurrence would affect maintenance of public order and thus, it cannot be a ground to detain him under the Act 14/1982 as a “Goonda”. 9. With regard to the discrepancy found in the F.I.R. and A.R.Copy, it can be explained by the complaint and not by the sponsoring authority and hence, it cannot be treated as a ground of attack. 10. Under the circumstances, the grounds 1 and 3 as stated above would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case in accordance with law. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.