Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. Challenge is made to an order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the second respondent herein in Memo No.450/BDFGISSV/2009, whereby the petitioners husband by name Rajesh was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Goonda". 2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the petitioners husband detenu is involved in two adverse cases viz. (i) D.3 Ice House police station Crime No.392 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 332 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and (ii) D.3 Ice House police station Crime No.275 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also a ground case in Crime No.779 of 2009 registered by D.3 Ice House police station for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307, 336, 427 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and on scrutiny of materials, the Detaining Authority, after arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that though the arrest was actually made on 15.9.2009, the order of detention came to be passed on 10.11.2009 and thus, there was a delay. Secondly, in respect of Crime No.775 of 2009, copy of remand extension order was not given to him. Learned counsel added further that page Nos.86 to 88 contain remand extension order, which would be quite clear that accused was not produced either on 29th September, 2009 or on 12th October, 2009, but remand is extended from 29.9.2009 to 2.10.2009 and thereafter from 12.10.2009 to 26.10.2009. Further, in both these orders, crime number is shown as 775 of 2009, but the detenu was involved in Crime No.779 of 2009. Under the circumstances, a clarification should have been called for, but not done so. These grounds would vitiate the detention order. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. Under the circumstances, a clarification should have been called for, but not done so. These grounds would vitiate the detention order. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. Insofar as first ground is concerned, this Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The detenu was arrested on 15.9.2009 in connection with Crime No.779 of 2009. An order of detention came to be passed on 10.11.2009. The Court is unable to notice any delay. When the materials are looked into, when the sponsoring Authority placed his recommendation and what was the actual interval between the two dates is not known. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the delay was caused by the detaining Authority after the recommendation was placed. Merely because the detenu was arrested on 15.9.2009 and detention order was passed on 10.11.2009, the Court is unable to notice any delay thereon. Hence, the first ground is rejected. 7. Insofar as second and third grounds are concerned, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page Nos.86 to 88 of the booklet contains two remand extension orders dated 29.9.2009 and 12.10.2009. On both the dates, accused was not produced. A mechanical extension order was passed that accused was not produced before the Court. The detaining Authority should have called for an explanation from the sponsoring Authority, but it had not done so. Apart from that, in both remand extension orders, crimie number is mentioned as 775 of 2009 and not 779 of 2009. Though copies have been served on the detenu, it is quite misleading. Under the circumstances, the detention order has got to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.11.2009 in Memo No.450/BDFGISSV/2009. The detenu, namely, Rajesh, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.