Judgment :- 1. Challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is the detention order dated 2.7.2009 passed by the Detaining Authority/Commissioner of Police whereby the son of the petitioner viz., Sudha @ Sudhakaran has been detained under Act 14/1982 (Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offen ders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Offenders and Video Pirates Act, 1982), branding him as a Goonda. 2. The Detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz., (i) Crime No. 678 of 2007 on the file of G5 Secretarist Colony Police Station for the offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (ii), I.P.C.; (ii) Crime No. 229 of 2008 on the file of K2 Ayanavaram Police Station for the offence under Sections 341, 397, r/w 149, I.P.C.; (iii) Crime No.427 of 2009 on the file of K2 Ayanavaram Police Station for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 448 and 506(ii), I.P.C.; and (iv) Crime No.435 of 2009 on the file of K2 Ayanavaram Police Station for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The ground case relates to the occurrence on 24.6.2009-7.15 p.m. When the complainant-Rose was proceeding with his fish cart, the detenu is alleged to have prevented him from moving further and also threatened him by brandishing his knife and he is also alleged to have attempted on the file of the complainant-Rose and the complainant said to have warded off the attack with his left hand, which caused bleeding injury to the complainant. 3. On the Complaint lodged by the said Rose, case was registered in Crime No.438 of 2009 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 336, 307, 384 and 506 (ii), I.P.C. The detenu was remanded to custody till 8.7.2009. On being satisfied that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that he is habitually indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order. 4. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the detention order is vitiated by non-application of mind. On being satisfied that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that he is habitually indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order. 4. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the detention order is vitiated by non-application of mind. Learned counsel submitted that in the English version of the remand order found in page No.118 of the booklet, Crime number is stated as 438 of 2009 whereas in the Tamil Version, in page No.119, Crime number is not mentioned, which is a defective translation, which would vitiate the detention order. In support of his contention, he was placed reliance upon the judgment in Mannu alias Boopathy v. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another, 2005 (1) CTC 47. The English version of the remand order contains Crime No. 438 of 2009. Even though the Tamil Version in page No. 119 does not contain the Crime number, it shows (D) F.I.R. No. as 729 of 2009. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is defective translation, which has caused prejudice to the detenu in making his representation does not merit acceptance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contented that in the booklet supplied to the detenu, in page No. 124, there is an insertion of a line handwritten as (TAMIL) Learned counsel submitted that regarding the insertion of the handwritten portion, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 5.8.2009 to the Government asking them as to who has made the said insertion in page No. 124 of the booklet. Learned counsel would submit that so far, the said representation was not considered and the result of the representation was also not communicated either to the petitioner or to the detenu. 6. We have perused the copy of the booklet supplied to the detenu. In page No. 124 of the booklet, the above said portion viz., “(TAMIL)” has been inserted as handwritten. The Handwritten sentence is not found in the other booklet supplied to the Court as well as the booklet of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Of course, the insertion by itself cannot have the effect of vitiating the detention order. In page No. 124 of the booklet, the above said portion viz., “(TAMIL)” has been inserted as handwritten. The Handwritten sentence is not found in the other booklet supplied to the Court as well as the booklet of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Of course, the insertion by itself cannot have the effect of vitiating the detention order. In the written representation dated 5.8.2009, petitioner has also stated that so far no efforts were taken by her or her relatives to move bail application and while so, the handwritten portion has been inserted only to cause prejudice against the detenu in the mind of Detaining Authority. 7. We have perused the file produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. By perusal of file reveals that the Government has considered the said representation dated 5.8.2009 and rejected the same. Even though the Government is said to have passed an order of rejection of the said representation, admittedly, the result was communicated either to the petitioner or to the detenu. That apart, by perusal of the rejection order by the Government, it is seen that the Government has not specifically adverted to the point raised by the detenu as to the insertion of the handwritten portion in page No. 124 of the booklet supplied to the detenu. In our considered view, the representation of the petitioner and the points raised by her has not been properly considered by the Government, which would have the effect of vitiating the detention order and the detention order is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.