Judgment :- (M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. Challenge is made to an order of detention passed by the second respondent in C3.D.O. No.22/2010 dated 31.3.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner Gopi was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as "Bootlegger". 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The 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 detenu is involved in five adverse cases viz. (1) Ranipet Police Station Crime No.196 of 2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (2) Ranipet Police Station Crime No.561 of 2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (3) Ranipet Police Station Crime No.615 of 2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (iv)Ranipet Police Station Crime No.885 of 2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and (5) Ranipet Police Station Crime No.102 of 2010 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and one ground case in Crime No.130 of 2010 registered by Ranipet Police station for the offences under Sections 4(1)(i)(aaa), 4(1-A)ii of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for the incident that had taken place on 12.2.2010, on scrutiny of materials available on record, the Detaining Authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, passed the detention order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that before making the order of detention, the Detaining Authority has relied on a medical Certificate as found in page No.44 in order to pass the order of detention under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act after branding him as "Bootlegger". A perusal of the medical Certificate found in page No.44 did not contain the name of the accused, police station or crime no. or any address, but the Authority, without application of mind, has relied on such document. A perusal of the medical Certificate found in page No.44 did not contain the name of the accused, police station or crime no. or any address, but the Authority, without application of mind, has relied on such document. Apart from the above, the detenu was found to be in possession of contraband on 12.2.2010, pursuant to which a case in crime No.130 of 2010 was registered by Ranipet police station, but the order under challenge came to be passed on 31.3.2010 with inordinate delay. Under the circumstances, the detention order has got to be set aside. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen above, the order of detention came to be passed on 31.3.2010 on the strength of the materials placed by the sponsoring Authority. Needless to say that in a given case like this, when the Detaining Authority makes an order of detention after branding the detenu as "Bootlegger:, he must have satisfied himself for arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the scrutiny of the available materials. One of the main document placed by the Sponsoring Authority and relied on by the Detaining Authority to record its subjective satisfaction is the medical Certificate as found in page No.44 of the booklet. 7. A perusal of the same would indicate that the said Certificate does not contain the name of the accused, police station or crime number, which the law would expect. Under the circumstances, the Detaining Authority should have called for proper document, but not done so. The fact that the Detaining Authority has acted on medical Certificate as found in page No.44 of the booklet would quite indicative of the fact that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as one recorded in the order of detention, which is termed as infirmity and defective. This would vitiate the order of detention. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in C3.D.O.No.22/2010 dated 31.03.2010. The detenu, namely, Gopi, who is now confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention/custody is required in connection with any other case.