Judgment :- 1. The father of the detenu has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for quashing the Order of detention, dated 28.01.2010, passed by the Second Respondent. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing one adverse case in Crime No.939 of 2009, J.6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and the ground case in Crime No.941 of 2009, on the file of J.6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent, The Commissioner of Police, Chennai, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as “Goonda” since his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, the Order of detention, dated 28.01.2010, was passed. The said Order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. Though the order of detention is challenged on various grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly relies on the following submissions: (i) There is discrepancy in the grounds of detention with regard to the time of occurrence in the adverse case and the registration number of the vehicle in which the victim travelled at the time of occurrence in the said case and that would vitiate the order of detention. (ii) The Detaining Authority has failed to consider as to why the Sponsoring Authority failed to remand the detenu Baskar in the ground case, though he surrended and subjected to judicial remand in the adverse case. 4. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said submission. 5. In Paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has mentioned the time of occurrence in the adverse case in Crime No.939 of 2009 as 09.00 hrs on 03.12.2009. In the tabular column relating to the adverse case is found in Page No.1 of grounds of detention, the time of occurrence in the adverse case is mentioned as 7.45 pm on 03.12.2009, which is in consonance with the entries in the FIR, found in Page No.1 of the booklet. In the same way, in the tabular column in Page No.1 in the averments with regard to the adverse case in Crime No.939 of 2009, the registration number of the motor cycle used by the victim is mentioned as TN-07-AE-7841. In the same way, in the tabular column in Page No.1 in the averments with regard to the adverse case in Crime No.939 of 2009, the registration number of the motor cycle used by the victim is mentioned as TN-07-AE-7841. In the copy of FIR, the registration number of the vehicle is mentioned as TN-07-AE-7481. In the statement of witnesses, the registration number of said vehicle is mentioned as TN-07-AE-2481. The glaring inconsistency with regard to the time of occurrence and the Registration Number of the vehicle mentioned in the grounds of detention pertaining to the adverse case, would vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind. 6. The detenue Baskar surrendered in the adverse case in Crime No.939 of 2009 and was released on bail after having been in judicial remand for some time. The very fact that the arrest/remand of the detenu in the ground case was not resorted to, would negative absolute necessity to clamp the order of detention on the detenu. On this ground also the order of detention is vitiated. For the above said reasons, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 28.01.2010 is set aside. The detenu Baskar @ Attukan Baskar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.