JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.884/2013 dated 03.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station,Crime No.386 of 2013 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 2. P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station,Crime No.775 of 2013 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 302 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1127 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the ground case was registered only for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in para 3 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu, who is habitually committing crimes, has already come to adverse notice in two cases and in the ground case he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing brutal murder and as such he is branded as a Goonda. The offences for which the ground case was registered were entirely different from that of the second adverse case, which was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A reading of the detention order would show that though the detaining authority has clamped the order of detention, by stating that the detenu has already come to the adverse notice in two cases and in the ground case, he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing brutal murder, the ground case has been registered only for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in stating that the detenu committed the brutal murder and the detention order is liable to be quashed on this sole ground alone. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Manikandan @ Lottai Mani, S/o.Rajendran, made in BDFGISSV No.884/2013 dated 03.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.