Judgment ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the Petitioner to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 1st Respondent herein and made in No.358/2009 dated 10. 2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, Sekar @ Chandrasekar, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The Petitioner, who is the detenu, challenges the order of detention, detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act “Goondas”, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on two earlier occasions and that on 29. 2009, when the Complaint, Nandakumar, demanded namely money from the detenu, which was borrowed by him earlier, the detenu indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by attacking the complainant with a knife, which resulted in registration of the ground case in Crime No.732 of 2009 on the file of R-8 Vadapalani Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307,336,427 and 506(ii), IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the detenu on the same day and produced before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who remanded him to Judicial custody till 10. 2009. 3. In view of the above, The Sponsoring Authority has satisfied that the detenu is a habitual offender and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the order of Detention against the detenu. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the order of Detention against the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Remand Report, as evident from page No.137, at the end of the paragraph, it has been stated that the relative of the detenu has been intimated about the arrest of the detenu, whereas, in the Arrest Memo, as evident from page No.127, at column No.12, it has been stated that the friend of the detenu was intimated about the arrest of the detenu, and in view of the said discrepancy, the order of Detention passed against the detenu gets vitiated. 6. On considering the materials, we find that there is every force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and hence, the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other cases.