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.1562/2013, dated 09.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Crime No.531 of 2012 Sections 147, 148, 506(ii) and 302 IPC 2. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No.2046 of 2013 Sections 384 and 506(i) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M-3, Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1813 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397, 336 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 focussed 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 2nd 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 two adverse cases and one ground case in the impugned order of detention, but no proof has been annexed in the booklet with regard to intimation of arrest of detenu effected in respect of Crime No.2046 of 2013, 2nd 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. Moreover, it is further noticed that at page no.65 of the booklet, an arrest memo is annexed, wherein the Crime Number is found mentioned as 2048 of 2013, whereas there is no such crime number indicated in the impugned order in both adverse and ground cases and therefore, derivation of unknown crime number without indication of its connectivity with the detenu shows improper application of mind, besides exhibiting no proof of intimation of arrest in respect of 2nd adverse case to the family members of the detenu. 6. 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, Oombi Venkatesan, S/o. Kanniyappan, made in BDFGISSV No.1562/2013, dated 09.11.2013, 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.