ORDER G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. 1. The Wife of the detenu who is the petitioner herein, challenges the detention order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the second respondent against him branding him as “GOONDA” as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 ( Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The detenu came to the adverse notice of the authorities in following three adverse cases: Sl. No Police Station and Cr.No Section of Law 1 N.3 Muthialpet Police Station 323, 427, 379 and 506 Cr. No. 712 of 2009 (i) IPC @ 341, 323, 324, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC 2 C.5 Kothavalchavadi Police Station 147, 148, 341, 324, Cr. No. 274 of 2011 326 and 506(ii) IPC read with 149 IPC 3 B.2 Esplanade Police Kttion Cr. No. 147, 148, 341, 324 (3 775 of 2011 counts), 307, 448, 427, 506 (ii) IPC and 379 IPC read with and 4 of TNPPP D & L Act and also the ground case in Cr. No. 1803 of 2011 on the file of D.4, Zam Bazar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 379 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. The sponsoring authorities having found that the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and was habitually committing crimes, placed materials before the detaining authority viz., the second respondent herein, to declare the detenu as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 4. On perusal of the materials placed before the second respondent, he got satisfied that the detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of public order, was habitually committing crimes and hence declared him as “Goonda” and passed the detention order on 1.11.2011. Challenging the order of detention, the wife of the detenu is before this Court. 5. Though several grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself to the following ground viz., that there is clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority on the factual aspect, regarding the place of occurrence of the ground case and also coming to the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu has affected the public order in a public place. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that on 23.10.2011 at 10.00 p.m, when the complainant was attending to his work in the Office of the AIADMK at No. 40, Devaraj Mudali Street, Zam Bazaar, Chennai, 10 persons came in a car and motorcycle and had a quarrel. It is further stated that around 11.00 p.m the detenu came along with 40 persons and went to the said office and committed various offences which are coming under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 379 and 506(ii) IPC. Five persons including the complainant, sustained injuries. The four persons, those who were injured, were taken to the hospital and treatment was given and a case has been registered in Cr. No. 1803 of 2011. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are following discrepancies in noting the place of occurrence: i) In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the occurrence took place, inside the office ii) in the Accident Register, one of the injured had stated that he sustained injuries when he was in his residence iii) the seizure mahazar would show that the weapons were seized in the office of AIADMK at No. 40, Devaraj Mudali Street, Zam Bazaar, Chennai. 8. Pointing out the above facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority had stated as follows: “The Inspector of Police visited the spot and prepared observation mahazar and also seized the logs and pipes found on the road side under cover of mahazar”. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that when the fact remains that the occurrence had taken place inside the office, the Detaining Authority, without application of mind and without any materials available before him, had come to the conclusion that by committing the above said activities in the public, in a busy residential cum business area, the detenu had created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. According to the learned counsel, when the incident had taken place inside the office, the observation of the Detaining Authority that it is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order shows the non application of mind. 10. According to the learned counsel, when the incident had taken place inside the office, the observation of the Detaining Authority that it is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order shows the non application of mind. 10. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who pointed out that though the incident had taken place at the office of the AIADMK, later it had spread over to the public place and that is how the inspector had seized the weapons in the road and therefore, there was an infringement of public order. 11. We have heard the submissions made on both sides and perused the material available on record. 12. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, had stated that on 23.10.2011 at 10.00 p.m, when the complainant was attending his work in the office of AIADMK at No. 40, Devaraj Mudali Street, Zam Bazaar, Chennai, initially 10 people quarrelled and later by 11.00 p.m, the detenu came along with 40 persons. It is stated that they assaulted the complainant with logs and pipes and as a result, the complainant sustained injuries over his head. It is further stated that they also assaulted Doluk Babu and Prakash, in which, both of them sustained injuries. 13. The Inspector of Police had visited the scene of occurrence and after registering the CSSB, had seized the weapons in the scene of occurrence. In seizure mahazar, which is enclosed in page No. 129 of the booklet, the Inspector of Police had stated that on 24.10.2011 at 7.15 a.m, the weapons were seized in the Office of AIADMK at No. 40, Devaraj Mudali Street, Zam Bazaar, Chennai in the presence of witnesses. 14. In the Accident Register, which relates to the complainant, found in page No. 122 of the booklet, it is mentioned that “alleged to have been assaulted by 30-40 persons st 10.00 p.m on 23.10.2011 at his residence”. 15. In the Observation Mahazar, which is found in page No. 127 of the Booklet, the Inspector of Police has observed that in the inside hall of the Office cum Residence of the complainant, a bathroom is located on the western side of the Hall and adjoining to that one table is there and near the table, logs were found scattered’, which shows that the weapons were all recovered only from inside the residence of the complainant. 16. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the Office as well as residence of the complainant is one and the same. 17. When the fact remains that the occurrence had taken place inside the office cum residence of the complainant and as per the seizure mahazar, the Inspector of Police seized the weapons in the abovesaid office, the Detaining Authority had stated that the Inspector visited the spot and seized the logs and pipes found on the road side under cover of mahazar. 18. When the fact remains that the occurrence had taken place inside the office, the Detaining Authority had come to the subjective satisfaction that, by committing the above said activities in the public, in a busy residential cum business area, the detenu had created alarm and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 19. When admittedly the occurrence had taken place inside the residence cum Office of the complainant, we fail to understand how, the detenu had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which vitiates the order of detention. Therefore the order of detention is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 20. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause. Petition allowed.