Judgment M. Chochalingam, J. Challenge is made to the order of detention, dated 1.4.2006, made by the 2nd respondent, terming the detenu by name Ramesh, the son of the petitioner, as a ’Goonda’. 2. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority, the 3rd respondent, that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases, namely (i) Vadapalani Police Station Crime No. 1020 of 2007 under Section 379 IPC; (ii) Virukampakkam Police Station Crime No. 979 of 2007 under Section 379 IPC; (iii) K.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 854 of 2007 under Section 379 IPC; and (iv) Koyambedu Police Station Crime No. 601 of 2007 under Section 379 IPC and one ground case in Crime No. 152 of 2008 under Sections 392, 341 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Battalagundu Police Station, the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent, after looking into the materials available, formed an opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he has got to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 terming him as a ‘Goonda’. Accordingly, the detention order, which is under challenge in this petition, came to be passed by the 2nd respondent. 3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the father of the detenu, the learned counsel inter alia brought to the notice of the Court that the detenu was arrested on 6.3.2008 and following the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority, the orders, under challenge came to be passed by the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent but, however, the respondents, have miserably failed to inform the detention order to a close relative of the detenu as required under the law and that when the detenu has no other relative except his father and the father has not received any intimation about the detention order, the order of detention suffers from non information as to the order of detention, which is in violation of the provisions of law and hence it has got be set aside. 4. In answer to the above contention, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, the order of detention was served upon one Selvi, wife of Mani, who is a close relative of the detenu. 5. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the above submissions made by the counsel on either side. 6. 4. In answer to the above contention, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, the order of detention was served upon one Selvi, wife of Mani, who is a close relative of the detenu. 5. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the above submissions made by the counsel on either side. 6. It is needless to say that when such an order is passed, a duty is cast upon the appropriate authority to serve the same on any one of the close relatives of the detenu. In the instant case, it has not been done, as could be evident. It is an admitted fact that the order came to be passed on the recommendations of the sponsoring authority as referred to above. It is also admitted that the order was not served on the petitioner, who is the father of the detenu. The State would claim that it was served upon one Selvi, wife of one Mani, who is, according to the petitioner, not at all related to the detenu. In such circumstances, it is for the State to explain as to how the said Selvi is related to the detenu. Learned Additional Public prosecutor fairly admitted that no such relationship is mentioned at the place where the said Selvi acknowledge the receipt of the order and thus, even assuming that it has been served upon the said Selvi, as contended, it cannot be stated to be a proper service. Under such circumstances, it can be stated that there is no service at all. In the absence of service of the order of detention on any one of the close relative of the detenu, the order cannot be sustained and thus it suffers from infirmity and on this ground it is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in No. 06/08 dated 1.4.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu S. Ramesh is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.