JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.926/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No Sections of Law 1. E-5, Cholavaram Police Station, Crime No.337 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307 and 302 IPC 2. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.1234/2013 Section 392 IPC 3. M-6, Manali Police Station, Crime No.1031 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC 4. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.1505 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 04.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-5, Ennore Police Station in Crime No.1549 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 r/w 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though 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 the date of remand has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, 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. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order as well as the remand order dated 22.08.2013 annexed at Page Nos.139 & 181 of the booklet would reveal some defects in mentioning the date of remand and the date indicated in the impugned order does not tally with the one actually found at the remand order. 5. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order as well as the remand order dated 22.08.2013 annexed at Page Nos.139 & 181 of the booklet would reveal some defects in mentioning the date of remand and the date indicated in the impugned order does not tally with the one actually found at the remand order. For better appreciation, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order as under: "3....On information, Thiru.K.Kesavan, Inspector of Police, Crime, M.5, Ennore Police Station filed an affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai-19 and made a formal arrest on P.T.Warrant in M.5, Ennore Police Station Cr.Nos.1505/2013 and 1549/2013 produced him before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai and lodged him at Central Prison, Vellore till 22.8.2013 as remand prisoner.” While so, the Remand Order dated 22.08.2013 furnished in the booklet both in English and Tamil versions at Page Nos.139 & 140 informs thus, “Accused produced at 1.15 P.m. Grounds informed. No complaints. Remanded to judicial custody till 26.8.13.” “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.139 & 140 and 181 & 182, it comes to light that there is utter discrepancy / misrepresentation about the fact in respect of the date of remand of detenu. While the detaining authority indicates the date of remand of detenu till 22.08.2013 in the impugned order, the copy of remand order annexed at Page Nos.139 & 181 of the booklet (English version in two different Cr.Nos.) would inform the date of remand of detenu till 26.08.2013. Owing to such contradictions with regard to the factual position of remand, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, P.T.Ramesh, S/o.Pasupathi, made in Memo No.926/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.