Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. Referring to four adverse cases in Cr.No.236 of 2009 on the file of T-15, SRMC police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place between 5.5.2009 and 11.5.2009, Cr.No.514 of 2009 on the file of S-1, St. Thomas Mount police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.5.2009, Cr.No.256 of 2009 on the file of S-4, Nandambakkam police station registered for offences punishable under Section 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 14.5.2009 and Cr.No.364 of 2009 on the file of K-8, Arumbakkam police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 28.5.2009 and the ground case in Cr.No.542 of 2009 on the file of the K-8, Arumbakkam police station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, the second respondent herein has passed an order of detention in Memo No.239/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 19.8.2009 holding the detenu Kannan @ Ganesan to be a ‘goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1992 and expressing his satisfaction that the detenu’s presence at large will be detrimental to the maintenance of public order and peace. 2. The detenu himself has come forward with this habeas corpus petition challenging the order of detention and praying for an order setting aside the order of detention and directing his release. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mostly relied on the following grounds to impugn the order of the detention: (i) There was non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as the Detaining Authority failed to note that the telegraphic intimation sent at 3.10 pm., on 5.8.2009 to the relative of the detenu contained a recital to the effect that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody and lodged in Central Jail, Puzhal, Chennai as a Remand Prisoner, whereas the actual remand was made by the Magistrate at 6.30 p.m. on the said date. (ii) There is in correct translation of the telegraphic intimation allegedly sent to the relative of the detenu. 4. We have heard Mr. (ii) There is in correct translation of the telegraphic intimation allegedly sent to the relative of the detenu. 4. We have heard Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State on the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to page No.87 of the paper book, wherein a copy of the receipt for the telegram is available. The telegram was booked at 15.0 hrs (3.10 p.m) on 5.8.2009. The contents of the telegram are found at page No.87(a). In the very same page, the Tamil translation of the telegram is also available. In the English version, besides crime number, the penal provisions are also found, whereas in the Tamil version, the penal provisions are absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is an incorrect translation causing prejudice to the detenu. We don’t find any force in the above said argument as both the English and Tamil versions are found at the very same page and the necessary particulars regarding the arrest of detenu and remand in the particular crime Number has been furnished. 6. On the other hand, there is force and substance in the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as the correctness of the telegraphic intimation sent to the relative of the detenu. A copy of the remand order is available at page No.92 of the Paper Book, it is obvious from the said copy of the remand order that the detenu was remanded on 5.8.2009 to judicial custody till 19.8.2009 and the remand order was passed on his production before the Magistrate at 6.30 p.m. However, in the telegraphic intimation sent at 3.10 p.m. itself, it has been stated that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody and lodged in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as a remand prisoner. Therefore, it is obvious that the Inspector of Police (Sponsoring Authority) had sent the said intimation in anticipation that the detenu would be remanded. This particular aspect was not considered by the Detaining Authority. We are satisfied that the same will amount to non-application of mind vitiating the order of detention itself. Therefore, it is obvious that the Inspector of Police (Sponsoring Authority) had sent the said intimation in anticipation that the detenu would be remanded. This particular aspect was not considered by the Detaining Authority. We are satisfied that the same will amount to non-application of mind vitiating the order of detention itself. On that ground alone, the order of the detention is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent in Memo No.239/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 19.8.2009 is set aside. The detenu, Kannan & Ganesan, S/o. Murugaiah is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.