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 BDFGISSV No.1423/2013 dated 23.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.1003 of 2010 Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC 2. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.395 of 2012 Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 3. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.1503 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC 4. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.1540 of 2010 Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station in Crime No.1687 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 427 and 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 though the detaining authority relied on the remand extension order granted to the detenu by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai in respect of ground case, the said material relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal 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 reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has referred to the order of remand extension granted to the detenu in respect of Crime No.1687 of 2013 by stating that the Inspector of Police produced accused Thiru.Rajesh before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai on 04.10.2013, who ordered the accused to be remanded till 18.10.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as remand prisoner and his further remand was extended till 31.10.2013. Once an order is relied on by the detaining authority, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of the said order to the detenu. But a perusal of the booklet at Page No.213, reveals that though the said remand order speaks about extension till 18.10.2013, there is no material annexed in it with respect to further extension upto 31.10.2013 relied upon by the detaining authority, which in our considered opinion, would definitely deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Rajesh, S/o. Thiyagarajan, made in BDFGISSV No.1423/2013 dated 23.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined 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. 7. 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.