Judgment :- C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. The mother of the detenu Gopi @ Muttai Gopi is the Petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and she has challenged the order of detention passed by the First Respondent, in Detention Order No.696/2010, dated 30.11.2010. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing two Adverse cases in Crime No.268/2010, M-1 Madhavaram Police Station and Crime No.760/2010, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station and the Ground case in Crime No.772/2010, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station and after looking into the materials available, the Fir4st Respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as GOONDA since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 2(1)(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 30.11.2010, was passed. The said order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. Though the order of detention is assailed on various grounds, the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that thee is delay in service of grounds of detention and it vitiates the order of detention. 4. We perused the records and heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard. 5. The order of detention is dated 30.11.2010 and the said order was served on the detenu on 1.12.2010 as per the endorsement found on the reverse page of the order of detention, whereas the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 7.12.2010 as per the endorsement found on the reverse of each page of the grounds of detention. Section 8 of the Act 14 of 1982 stipulates that the authority making the order of detention, shall communicate the grounds on which the order has been made, not later than 5 days from the date of detention. Admittedly, in the present case, the grounds of detention was served later than 5 days from the date of detention and there is a clear violation of mandatory provision and the same would vitiate the order of detention and on that ground alone, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the First Respondent is set aside. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the First Respondent is set aside. The detenu Gopi @ Muttai Gopi is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.