Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.251/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 20.06.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 B1 North Beach Police Station Crime No.248/2013 379 IPC 2 H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station Crime No.345/2013 392 IPC 3 H1 Washermanpet Police Station Crime No.532/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.05.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station in Crime No.350/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 384, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the detaining authority failed to seek clarification from the sponsoring authority about the serving of arrest memo 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 the detaining authority. 4. Heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above submission. 5. A scrutiny of the Arrest Memo annexed at page 48 of the booklet would show that the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to any of the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu. When a person is taken into custody pursuant to a detention order, the members of his/her household, preferably his/her parents, spouse or children must be informed in writing of the passing of the detention order against the detenu(e) as also the fact that the detenu(e) has been taken into custody, by duly intimating as to the place of detention including the place where the detenu(e) is transferred from time to time, which would ensure the right of the person arrested under preventive detention. If such intimation of arrest is not made effectively, then it would confer a right upon the person arrested to impugn the arrest effected on him/her. If such intimation of arrest is not made effectively, then it would confer a right upon the person arrested to impugn the arrest effected on him/her. In the case on hand, since there is no proof to exhibit intimation of arrest to the family members of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 6. In similar circumstances, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanmugam and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in (2013) 4 MLJ (Crl) 1, while issuing some suggestions and guidelines to the Government of Tamil Nadu, set aside the order of detention, by observing as under: "19. Despite clear instructions given by the Government after touching upon the legal position, the officer, who arrested the detenus informed the said arrest to the wife and friend of detenus over cellphone, by simply stating that the date of arrest being Sunday, no telegraphic service was available, which is a matter of ignorance on the part of arresting authorities, as in our country, telegraphic services are available even on Sundays. The mode of communication adopted by the authorities, which was not even looked into by the detaining authorities is not only unknown to the settled principles, but also is an attempt to cast aside the instructions given by the Government." 7. In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.251/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining the detenu, namely Saravanan @ Pokkai Saravanan 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.