Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. 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.785/2013 dated 24.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Crime No.166 of 2011 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 397, 506 (ii) IPC @ 302 IPC 2. M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1245 of 2013 341, 294(b) and 384 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 05.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-5, Ennore Police Station in Crime No.1555 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 focused 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 second adverse case to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu and there is 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 2 adverse cases and one ground case in the impugned order of detention, no proof has been annexed in the booklet with regard to intimation of arrest of detenu effected in respect of Crime No.1245 of 2013, second adverse case 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 second 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 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Yuvaraj, S/o. Chandran, made in BDFGISSV No.785/2013 dated 24.08.2013, 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.