Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J This Writ Application challenges the order of detention made by the third respondent in Detention Order No. 21/2008(CS) dated 21.12.2008 whereby the petitioner's husband was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980(Act 7 of 1980) terming him as a "Black Marketeer". 2. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in four adverse cases viz., Crime No. 643/2007 registered by Madurai Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department; Crime Nos. 360/2008 and 380/2008 registered by Virudhunagar Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department; Crime No. 965/2008 registered by Dindigul Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, which were all registered under the one and same Sections 6(4) of TNSC(RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and in one ground case in Crime No. 1011/2008 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 registered by Dindigul Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, the detaining authority, after looking to the materials available, took the view that the activities of the detenu would clearly indicate that for the purpose of enriching himself, at the cost of the poor people, he was acting against the public distribution system and since the activities of the detenu were against the maintenance of supplies of the essential commodities and hence, he should be branded as "Black Marketeer" and an order of detention was to be passed and accordingly, the order was made, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court the following grounds:- (i) In the instant case, 40 bags of Public Distribution System rice each weighing 50 kgs were seized on 19.11.2008. Bail application was filed on 19.12.2008 and the same was dismissed on 19.12.2008. The order under challenge came to be passed on 21.12.2008. Thus, on the date of the detention order came to be passed on 21.12.2008, there was no bail actually pending but the detaining authority has stated in his order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or higher Court in the above cases. Thus, on the date of the detention order came to be passed on 21.12.2008, there was no bail actually pending but the detaining authority has stated in his order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or higher Court in the above cases. It would indicate that such an observation was made without any material or whatsoever. (ii) In the arrest report under Section 58 Cr.P.C., in English Version, the custody of the detenu was shown as on 19.12.2008 but in the Tamil version of the arrest report under Section 58 Cr.P.C. it was shown that the detenu was taken into custody on 19.11.2008. Thus, it is found to be discrepant, but no clarification was called for. (iii) The prime accused from whom the confessional statement was alleged to have been recorded was arrested on 19.11.2008 but his signature is said to have been obtained on 28.9.2008. This discrepancy should have been got clarified. (iv) All would go to show that the detaining authority has not adverted to any of these discrepancies and without application of mind, the order has been passed mechanically. 4. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and looked into the materials available. After doing so, the Court has no other option than to set aside the detention order on the following reasons:- (i) Firstly, the Bail Application was dismissed on 19.12.2008 but the detaining authority in his order of detention, which came to be passed on 21.12.2008, has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Such an observation is without any material or basis whatsoever. (ii) Added further, in the arrest report under Section 58 Cr.P.C. in English version, the arrest of the detenu was mentioned as 19.12.2008 whereas in the Tamil version, it was shown that the detenu was arrested on 19.11.2008. These vital discrepancies are noticed. The detaining authority should have called for a clarification. If not, then, it would tell upon the fact that the detaining authority has mechanically signed the order and has not even gone into it. Had the scrutiny has been done, a clarification should have been sought. These vital discrepancies are noticed. The detaining authority should have called for a clarification. If not, then, it would tell upon the fact that the detaining authority has mechanically signed the order and has not even gone into it. Had the scrutiny has been done, a clarification should have been sought. (iii) The prime accused from whom the confessional statement was alleged to have been recorded was arrested on 19.11.2008 but his signature is said to have been obtained on 28.9.2008. This discrepancy should have been got clarified. 5. All the above grounds would go to show that it is an utter carelessness on the part of the detaining authority to pass such an order and serve on the detenu. In such circumstances, it would be suffice 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. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.