JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu Manikandan has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent made in C.M.P.No.48/Goonda/Salem City/2013, dated 25.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Kannankurichi Police Station Crime No.251/2011 143, 341, 353, 188 IPC 2. Kannankurichi Police Station Crime No.269/2011 392 r/w 397 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station in Crime No.261/2013 for offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested. If such constitutional requirement is not satisfied, then the detention order clamped on the detenu is liable to be vitiated on the ground of violation of Article 22(1). Pointing to Page No.267 of the booklet, he would vehemently contend that communication in respect of arrest of the detenu was given only to the Jailor, Central Prison, Salem and therefore it will not serve the purpose for which the arrest communication is to be made. He would also contend that as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India and another ( AIR 1982 SC 710 (1), there must be a communication to the relatives of the person arrested to enable them take steps to bail out the arrested person and if it is communicated to the prison authorities, the entire object will be defeated and the constitutional mandate will not be achieved. 4. Controverting the above submission, Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the detenu was in prison, the arrest intimation was served through the Superintendent/Jailor of the Prison and therefore, there is no violation of the constitutional requirement and that will serve the purpose and thereby the detenu will know about his arrest. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 6. In the case of A.K.Roy Vs. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 6. In the case of A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India and another ( AIR 1982 SC 710 (1)) and D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that immediately 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. Intimation must also be given as to the place of detention including the place where the detenu is transferred from time to time. 7. In similar circumstances, following the above said Supreme Court decisions, this Court in the case of Devi and others vs. The Government of Tamilnadu and another, by an order dated 11.06.2014, has set aside the orders of detention against the detenus therein, by holding as under: “11. On verification of the booklets in all these cases, particularly the arrest memos would reveal that the communications have been sent either to the Superintendents or Jailors of the Prisons. The sponsoring authorities have failed to comply with the constitutional requirements. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is a violation of constitutional requirement. If such orders are passed by the detaining authorities, based on such an information, which is not supplied and communicated either to the detenu or the relatives or the parties, the purpose of constitutional requirement will be defeated and the provisions of the Act contemplating the manner and the procedure under which it should be done, has also to be followed by them. Such a failure would vitiate the entire process and therefore, the impugned orders of detention are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned orders of detention are set aside.'' 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is a violation of constitutional requirement in this case also, as the intimation of arrest of the detenu has been given only to the Jailor, Central Prison, Salem as could be seen from page 267 of the booklet and there is no communication either to the detenu or to his relatives, thereby defeating the constitutional requirement. 9. 9. Accordingly, the impugned detention order detaining the detenu Manikandan, S/o.Murugesan passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.48/Goonda/Salem City/2013, dated 25.11.2013 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. 10. However, in view of serious offence involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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 detenus to claim anything before the Regular Court.