Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend 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 second respondent passed in Memo No.1345/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 15.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E.1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1570 of 2013 341, 323, 294(b), 506(ii) and 397 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.9.2013 by the Inspector of Police Crime, E.1 Mylapore Police Station in Crime No.1577 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that though in the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the remand was extended upto 18.10.2013, in the booklet furnished to the accused, it has been simply stated that “remand extended till “and no specific date was mentioned. For the above reason, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 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. For appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the relevant portion in the grounds of detention is extracted below: "Later, the Inspector of Police has produced the accused Tvl.Manikandan @ Trouser Kumar, Mohammed Ali @ Ali Bhai, Diwan @ Diwan Mohammed, Syed Iliyas, Prakash and Santhose Kumar before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai on 21.9.2013 who ordered the accused to be remanded till 4.10.2013 and lodged them at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as remand prisoners. Their remand was extended till 18.10.2013." Whereas in remand extension orders dated 4.10.2013 pertaining to Crime Nos. 1570 and 1577 of 2013 respectively, as found in page Nos.123 and 127 of the booklet furnished to detenu, it has been stated as follows: “Accused produced through Video Conference. Remand Extended till” 6. Their remand was extended till 18.10.2013." Whereas in remand extension orders dated 4.10.2013 pertaining to Crime Nos. 1570 and 1577 of 2013 respectively, as found in page Nos.123 and 127 of the booklet furnished to detenu, it has been stated as follows: “Accused produced through Video Conference. Remand Extended till” 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has stated that the accused have been produced before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and their remand was extended till 18.10.2013. But in page Nos.123 and 127 of the booklet viz., remand extension orders in Crime Nos.1570 and 1577 of 2013 respectively, it has been simply stated that “ Remand Extended till “ and a specific date was not mentioned. Therefore, when there is omission of date in the remand extension order, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Prakash, S/o. Palani, made in Memo No.1345/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 15.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.