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. 1255/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 09.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-4, Basin Bridge Police Station, Cr. No. 3 of 2013 Section 302 IPC 2. D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Cr. No. 661 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 3. H-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.734 of 2013 Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 4. H-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.1143 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-4, Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No. 486 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority failed to ask clarification from the sponsoring authority about non serving of arrest memo in respect of 3rd adverse case to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu and there was no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A close reading of the booklet shows that though there is a mention about 4 adverse cases and one ground case in the impugned order of detention, no proof has been annexed in the booklet with regard to the arrest effected in respect of Crime No. 734 of 2013, 3rd adverse case in intimating the arrest of detenu to the family members, relatives or friends as mandated by the Constitution. It is also to be remembered that in order to meet fairness, justness and reasonableness, after a person is taken in custody in pursuance of an order of detention, the members of his household, preferably the parent, the child or the spouse, must be informed in writing of the passing of the order of detention and of the fact that the detenu has been taken in custody, by duly intimating as to the place of detention, including the place where the detenu is transferred from time to time, which would ensure the right of the person arrested under preventive detention. If such intimation of arrest has not been made effectively, then, it would confer a right upon the arrestee to impugn the arrest effected on him. 6. In the case on hand, there is no proof to exhibit such intimation of arrest in third adverse case to the family members of the detenu. Thus, on account of the failure of the detaining authority in communicating the arrest of detenu to the family members, the detention order would be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 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, Mari @ Korukkupettai Mari, S/o Babu, made in Memo No. 1255/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 09.10.2013, 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. 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.