Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. The petitioner who is the father of the detenu Kumar, challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 18.11.2009, whereby Kumar was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of that enactment. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that he is involved in two adverse cases namely (1) Sivagangai District, Elayangudi Police Station Crime No.226/2004 under Sec.379 IPC and (2) Coimbatore District, Perur Police Station Crime No.270/2006 under Sections 450, 392, 302 IPC @ 120(B), 449, 450, 302 and 392 IPC r/w 120(B) and 109 IPC and also ground case in Crime No.1222 of 2009 registered by B11 Saibaba Colony Police Station under Sec.392 read with 397 IPC and on scrutiny of all the materials available, the detaining authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and made the order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that according to the State, he was involved in two adverse cases, and one case was registered in Crime No.226/2004 under Sec.379 IPC, and a charge sheet has also been laid and the confession alleged to have been given by the accused and also the athatchi for the recovery of the stolen articles namely gold jewels, were all placed before the detaining authority and also looked into, and the crime number was also referred to in the order under challenge; that a perusal of all the documents namely the charge sheet, confession and athatchi, would reveal that the name of the father of the detenu Kumar is shown as Veerabathiran Pillai, Bramanakurichi; but, the detention order was passed only against one Kumar, son of Arumugam, and thus it is apparent on the face of the records, and if to be so, a clarification should have been called for, but not done so, and hence this itself would vitiate the order. 5. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in short would submit that as far as the contention now put forth in respect of one of the adverse cases, is concerned, that cannot be given any importance at all. 6. This Court after hearing the submissions made is of the considered opinion that the contentions put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State cannot be countenanced in law. The sponsoring authority brought to the notice of the detaining authority that he was involved in two adverse cases including Crime No.226/2004 under Sec.379 IPC. All these documents pertaining to that crime number were relied upon documents the copies of which have also been supplied to the detenu as could be seen from the booklet. Now, a perusal of the documents pertaining to the above crime number, would clearly indicate that the documents namely charge sheet, confession alleged to have been made by the accused Kumar and also the athatchi would clearly reveal that in all these documents the accused therein is described as Kumar S/o. Veerabathiran Pillai of Bramanakurichi. But, the detention order at present is passed against Kumar S/o. Arumugam who is the petitioner herein. Under such circumstances, how these documents were placed by the sponsoring authority or relied upon by the detaining authority before passing the order remained unexplained. Had it been properly scrutinised, a clarification should have been called for. This would indicate either the documents were not properly scrutinised or if it is taken as scrutinised, the order has been passed on non-application of mind and in either way the order is vitiated, and that ground would suffice to set aside the order. 7. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.