Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenue has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.O.C.No.28 of 2013, dated 07.09.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. Poombuhar Police Station – Cr.No.42 of 2013 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w. 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act 2. Poombuhar Police Station – Cr.No.43 of 2013 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC r/w. 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act 3. Tiruvarur Police Station – Cr.No.408 of 2013 387 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 17.08.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station in Crime No.409 of 2013 for the offence under Section 392 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 mainly focussed his argument that the detaining authority failed to ask clarification from the sponsoring authority about non serving of arrest memo in a proper manner to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu and there was no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, as the arrest was communicated through cell phone to one Mr. Muthu Devendiran, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. 4. Per contra, Mr. P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that acts committed by the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and the arrest was communicated by way of cell phone to one Mr. Muthu Devendiran, which is an effective and speedy way of communication available with the authorities and therefore, there is no illegality in making such intimation. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. A close reading of the arrest memo, which is annexed at page no.49 of the booklet shows that the arrest of detenu was intimated to one Mr. Muthu Devendiran over phone No.9443031456. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. A close reading of the arrest memo, which is annexed at page no.49 of the booklet shows that the arrest of detenu was intimated to one Mr. Muthu Devendiran over phone No.9443031456. But at the same time, it is 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. In the case on hand, detaining authority has stated that the arrest of the detenu had been communicated through cell phone to one Mr.Muthu Devendiran, but, there is no proof to exhibit such intimation of arrest to the family members of the detenu. Thus, on the failure of the same, the detention order would be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 7. The 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 in this regard, 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." 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Saravanan, S/o. Shanmugamani, made in C.O.C.No.28/2013, dated 07.09.2013, 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. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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.