Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 13.4.2010, whereby the petitioners son Lakshmanan was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2. All the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in five adverse cases namely (1) K3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.803/2008 under Sec.380 IPC; (2) Periyapalayam PS Cr.No.830/2008 under Sec.397 r/w 395 IPC; (3) K-3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.1/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) K3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.255/2010 under Sec.380 IPC and (5) K3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.272/2010 under Sections 341 and 392 IPC and also in a ground case registered by K3 Aminjikarai PS in Crime No.285/2010 under Sections 341, 332, 336, 427, 307 and 506(2) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 3.3.2010, and he was arrested on the same day and on scrutiny of the entire materials, the detaining authority namely the second respondent herein has made the order under challenge after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. Learned Counsel while advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, put forth the following grounds: (i) The detenu was arrested on 3.3.2010 not only in the ground case, but also shown arrest in the adverse cases 3, 4 and 5, and he has not moved any bail application before any Court of criminal law in those cases. But the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail which is without any material, much less cogent material. (ii) As regards the arrest intimation as found in page 110, it was made to one Malliga, a relative of the detenu. But actually the detenu had no such relation as Malliga, and no description or relationship is mentioned therein. It was made in order make it appear as if the intimation was given. (iii) The special report was actually submitted on 13.4.2010. On the very day, the order of detention came to be passed. Under the circumstances, it could not have been perused or taken into account before passing the order. Hence it has got to be set aside. 5. (iii) The special report was actually submitted on 13.4.2010. On the very day, the order of detention came to be passed. Under the circumstances, it could not have been perused or taken into account before passing the order. Hence it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge. As regards the first ground, the detenu is shown arrest in the adverse cases 3 to 5 and also in the ground case, and he has not moved any bail application before any Court of criminal law. But the authority even after recording so, has observed that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail which is without any basis or foundation or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Hence the order has become infirm. 7. Insofar as the second ground, the arrest intimation was given to one Malliga, a relative, as found in page 110 of the booklet. But, according to the detenu, he had no such relative by name Malliga. That apart, neither any description nor any relationship is mentioned therein. Hence the same would also vitiate the order. 8. As regards the third ground, this Court is unable to see any merit in the same. However, on the first two grounds, this Court is of the view that the order has got to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.