Judgment :- P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 25.11.2010, passed by the Second Respondent herein holding the Petitioner’s husband viz., the detenu Meenkaran @ Mariyappan, to be a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982. 2. The Detaining Authority relied on as many as six Adverse cases viz., (1) Crime No.112/2010, on the file of Dharmapuri Police Station; (2) Crime No.111/2010, on the file of Kaveripattinam Police Station; (3) Crime No.460/2010, on the file of Dharmapuri Police Station; (4) Crime No.99/2010, on the filed of Mahandramangalam Police Station; (5) Crime No.123/2010, on the file of Palacode Police Station (6) Crime No.170 of 2010, on the file of Papparappatti Police Station and also the ground case in Crime No.216 of 2010, on the file of Palacode Police Station, for an alleged offences under Section 392, IPS, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was a Goonda as defined under Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 3. Though several ground have been raised in the Affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition assailing the order of detention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks the leave of the Court to raise an additional ground. We consider the request and permit the Petitioner to raise such an additional ground. 4. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there was denial of reasonable opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention at the earliest insofar as thee is delay in furnishing copies of the relied on documents in the from of booklet. 5. We also heard the submission made by Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above said point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 6. The order of detention was passed on 25.11.2010, and the same along with the ground of detention was served on the detenu on 25.11.2010 itself. However, the booklet containing the copies of the relied on documents, was supplied to the detenu only on 1.12.2010. 6. The order of detention was passed on 25.11.2010, and the same along with the ground of detention was served on the detenu on 25.11.2010 itself. However, the booklet containing the copies of the relied on documents, was supplied to the detenu only on 1.12.2010. According to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, copies of the relied on documents were not furnished to he detenu within the period of five days stipulated in Section 8 of the Act, to afford him the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention and on that ground lone. The order of detention is liable to be set aside. 7. Of course, the language of Section 8(1) does not refer to the supply of copies of the documents along with the grounds of detention. It simply refers to the communication to the detenu of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. But, however, it was superadded with the rider specifying the purpose for which the grounds are to be communicated. The purpose enshrined therein is to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention to the Government. The mere supply of the ground of detention unaccompanied by copies of the materials relied on the Detaining Authority, is of no use for the purpose of making an effective representation, at the earliest opportunity, against the order of detention. Therefore, we are of the view that the supply of copies of materials relied on along with the grounds of detention is also the requirement of the said provision to enable the detenu to make an effective representation at the earliest point of time. In other words, the supply of ground of detention as contemplated in Section 8(1) will include the supply of the copies of he relied on documents also and this view will also be strengthened by the fact that the abstract order of detention could not have been passed even before preparing the grounds of detention stating the reasons. 8. In other words, the supply of ground of detention as contemplated in Section 8(1) will include the supply of the copies of he relied on documents also and this view will also be strengthened by the fact that the abstract order of detention could not have been passed even before preparing the grounds of detention stating the reasons. 8. For the above said reasons, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was denial of opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention at the earliest point of time, as the copies of the relied on documents were not supplied within the stipulated time under Section 8. Hence, the order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the impugned order of detention dated 25.11.2010, passed by the Second Respondent, is set aside. The detenu Meenkaran @ Mariyappan is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.