Judgment :- 1. The detenu Chithirakumar himself is the Petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition, and he has challenged the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent in P.D.No.18/2010, dated 11.11.2010. 2. The Detaining Authority relied on as many as six adverse cases viz. (1) Crime No.287/2006, on the file of Ayyampettai Police Station; (2) Crime No.160/2009, on the file of Kabisthalam Police Station; (3) Crime No.299/2009, on the file of Ayyampettai Police Station; (4) Crime No.25/2010, on the file of Melatoor Police Station; (5) Crime No.171/2010, on the file of Ayyampettai Police Station; (6) Crime No.225/2010 on the file of Ayyampettai Police Station, and also the ground case in Crime No.247/2010, on the file of Ayyampettai Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 386 and 506 (ii), IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was a Goonda as defined under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14/1982. 3. Though the order of detention is challenged on various grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise an additional ground and we permit the same. 4. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in the order of detention, the Detaining Authority has mentioned the age of the detenu as 21/2010 and whereas, in the remand report in the second adverse case, namely Crime No.160/2009 of Kabisthalam Police Station, a copy of which is found in page No.37 of the booklet, the age of the detenu Chithirakumar is mentioned as 15/2009 and there is material contradiction and the Detaining Authority ought to have called for a Clarification Report from the Sponsoring Authority, but, it has failed to do so. 5. 5. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the detenu was an under-trial prisoner in all the adverse cases as well as in the ground case and it is not known as to under what order he was remanded to Borstal School and the remand orders passed in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case, are not available in the booklet and it is not known as to how the Detaining Authority in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, has stated about the awareness of the detenu being in remand in the three of the adverse cases and the ground case as a remand prisoner in Borstal School, and the said observation is based on extraneous material which has not been supplied to the detenu, and there is suppression of material, namely the non-production of the said remand orders which would vitiate the order of detention. 6. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents on the above said submission. 7. In the detention order as well as in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has observed that Thiru. Chithirakumar is aged 21/2010. A copy of the remand report in the second adverse case in Crime No.160/2009, on the file of Kabishthalam Police Station, is found in Page No.37 of the booklet. In the said report, the Investigation Officer has noted the age of Chithirakumar as 15/2009. The time gap between the registration of the second adverse case as well as the ground case is only one year and within that time, Chithirakumar could not have attained the age of 21 years. In any event, the Detaining Authority has failed to call for a clarification report in this regard and the order of detention is vitiated on the said ground. 8. The Detaining Authority in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, has stated that it is aware that Thiru. Chithirakumar is in remand, as remand prisoner in Borstal School, Thanjavur, in the adverse cases 5, 3 and 6 besides the ground case. The remand orders pertaining to the above cases, are not found in the booklet. Besides, it is relevant to point out that the none of the initial remand orders in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case are found in the booklet. The remand orders pertaining to the above cases, are not found in the booklet. Besides, it is relevant to point out that the none of the initial remand orders in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case are found in the booklet. In the copies of the remand extension orders found in the booklet, there is no reference to the Borstal School. In such circumstances, it is not known as to how the Detaining Authority has expressed awareness about the remand of the detenu in the Borstal School. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the awareness expressed is based on an extraneous material is well founded. 9. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was deliberate omission to include the initial remand orders in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case can be countenanced. We are also at a loss to understand as to the necessity to clamp an order of detention directing the person to be detained in a Borstal School. For the above said reasons, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the impugned order of detention dated 11.11.2010, passed by the Second Respondent, is set aside. The detenu Chithirakumar is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.