Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent made in P.D.No.09/2008 dated 11.4.2008 whereby the husband of the petitioner namely Kumar @ Sukumaran @ Sukumar was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as Goonda. 2. The Court perused the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and looked into the affidavit and also the counter affidavit filed by the State. 3. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in six adverse cases all registered by Thiruppanandal PS in Cr.No.257/2004 under Sections 341, 323 and 506(ii) IPC, Cr.No.325/2004 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, Cr.No.166/2005 under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, Cr.No.113/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, Cr.No.232/2007 under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Cr.No.263/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and also one ground case in Thirupanandal PS Cr.No.73/2008 under Sections 307, 427, 341 and 506(ii) IPC, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge after terming him as Goonda. 4. 4. Assailing the order, the learned Counsel would submit that the order under challenge came to be passed by the first respondent detaining authority on 11.4.2008; that a pre-detention representation was given to the first respondent on 31.3.2008 itself; that on 9.4.2008, the first respondent received a report from the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur; that on perusal, the detaining authority has stated that he cannot take a decision in favour of the petitioner (detenu); but there was absolutely no material to show that the detaining authority has perused the report dated 9.4.2008 and has taken its view independently, but has acted only on the report; that secondly, it was stated in the course of the order under challenge that the detenu was a history-sheeted rowdy; but, no material is available to indicate the same; that the same would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; that thirdly, there was a discrepancy between the English and Tamil versions; that in the English version of the grounds of detention, it is stated that bail applications were pending before the Court; but, in the Tamil version, it is stated that anticipatory bail application was likely to be filed by the detenu; that lastly, there was an inordinate delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu; and that all would suffice to set aside the order. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions. 6. Concededly, the order under challenge came to be passed after the detaining authority, the first respondent herein, recording its subjective satisfaction on perusal of the materials pertaining to the six adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence a necessity arose to detain him under Act 14/82 terming him as Goonda. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also scrutiny of the order, the Court has to necessarily term the impugned order as infirm and also the Court is able to notice the non-application of mind. 7. As could be seen from the order, there was a pre-detention representation made on 31.3.2008. The report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur. The same was also placed before the detaining authority. 7. As could be seen from the order, there was a pre-detention representation made on 31.3.2008. The report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur. The same was also placed before the detaining authority. It remains to be stated that there is nothing to indicate that the order which is under challenge was an independent one, but the detaining authority relied only on the report given. Further, there is an indication in the order that the detenu was a history-sheeted rowdy; but, no material was placed before the detaining authority. Under such circumstances, he should have called for the necessary materials before recording his satisfaction. 8. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, there is a discrepancy found in the English and Tamil versions. The last ground which, in the considered opinion of the Court, was a strong one in favour of the detenu, was that the representation was made on 23.4.2008. The remarks were called for on 2.5.2008. But, they were received only on 19.5.2008. There was 17 long intervening days. Even assuming that there were four holidays, the State has no explanation to offer in respect of 13 long intervening days. It would be quite indicative of the fact that the representation was not considered with due care and diligence and also promptitude which, in the considered opinion of the Court, would suffice to set aside the order. 9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.