Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The petitioner wife of the detenu – Prabhu @ Kili Prbahu, challenges the order of detention dated 211. 2008 passed by the second respondent detaining him under 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) after he was identified as a “Goonda” since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 11. 2008, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. From the grounds of detention, it appears that the order of detention came to be passed since the detenu had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on three earlier occasions, that is, (i) H.3 Tondiarpet P.S. Crime No. 316 of 2007 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC; (ii) N.4 Fishing Harbour P.S. Cr. No. 18 of 2008 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506(2) IPC; and (iii) H.1 Washermenpet P.S. Cr. No. 795 of 2008 registered under Sections 384 and 506(ii) IPC and that on 11. 2008, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which resulted in the registration of the ground case in H.3 Tondiarpet P.S. Crime No. 564 of 2008 registered under Sections 341, 427, 352, 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. He was arrested and produced before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and remanded till 211. 2008, which was further extended up to 12. 2008. As the detenu has involved in a number of cases, the sponsoring authority sponsored the case to the detaining authority, who, on consideration of the materials placed on record, satisfied himself that the detenu is a ‘Goonda’ and found the compelling necessity of detaining him as per the provisions of Section 29f) of the Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982 in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, passed the order of detention. 4. 4. In his endeavour to assail the order of a detention, amongst other grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that there is no index available in the booklet to specify the documents and their respective page numbers, which led to confusion, thereby the detenu was prevented from discerning the case against him so as to make an effective representation and in such circumstances, the detention order is liable to be interfered with. 5. By was of reply, learned Additional public Prosecutor submitted that such aspect as adverted to by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken as a ground to assail the detention order. 6. Insofar as the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find that after passing the order of detention dated 211. 2008, copies of the documents were supplied to the detenu in the form of a voluminous paper-book, but without, index thereto. In view of the same, we have no other option but to hold that this aspect would amount to deprivation of the constitutional liberty of the detenu to make an effective representation with the Government in time. 7. Therefore, we are of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority and accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed on the above terms. Petition allowed.