Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 Memo No. 1151/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 28.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Central Crime Branch Crime No. 134 of 2012 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120(b) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XV, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell in Crime No. 377 of 2013 for offences under Sections 419, 465, 467 r/w 471, 420 r/w 120(b) IPC. 3. Among other grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail that the detenu was not a remand prisoner in Crime No. 134 of 2012 pertaining to the first adverse case on the date of the impugned detention order, which was made on 28.09.2013. Page 17 of the booklet, which is the PT Warrant of the detenu in Crime No. 134 of 2012 dated 27.09.2013 would reveal that on 30.09.2013, the detenu was not a remand prisoner in Crime No. 134 of 2012. Therefore, he would contend that the detaining authority has not applied his mind and mechanically passed the detention order without noticing such discrepancy. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the detention order and the booklet would reveal that in the first adverse case against the detenu in Crime No. 134 of 2012, PT warrant dated 27.09.2013, annexed at page 17 of the booklet, was issued to the detenu ordering him to be present before the Magistrate concerned on 30.09.2013. While so, the detention order in the ground case was passed on 28.09.2013. Though the detenu was ordered to be produced on 30.09.2013 before the concerned Court, he was not a remand prisoner in Crime No. 134 of 2012 on the date of passing the detention order, which fact has not been averred by the detaining authority in the detention order. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Hence, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Saravananakumar made in Memo No. 1151/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 28.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.