Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother 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. 969 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 752 of 2013 302, 201 IPC 2. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 1554 of 2013 341, 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 05.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1559 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 363, 336, 427, 397, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the detaining authority has expressed his awareness that the detenu is in remand in P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime Nos. 1554 of 2013 and 1559 of 2013, the remand order in Crime No. 1554 of 2013 (second adverse case) has not been furnished to the detenu in the booklet and there is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand order in respect of the ground case in Crime No. 1559 of 2013 alone is enclosed at Page No. 79 of the booklet and the remand order in respect of the second adverse case in Crime No. 1554 of 2013 has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the remand order in respect of the second adverse case prevented the detenu from making effective representation. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Therefore, non-furnishing of the remand order in respect of the second adverse case prevented the detenu from making effective representation. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Seba @ Sebastian, S/o Anthonysamy, made in BDFGISSV No. 969 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in 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.