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 No.C2/29462/2013 dated 07.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Villupuram Town Police Station, Crime No.504 of 2010 Sections 147, 148, 324, 325, 506(ii), 302 r/w 149 IPC 2. Villupuram Town Police Station, Crime No.622 of 2012 Sections 147, 148, 449, 451, 506(ii), 302 r/w 149 IPC Kallakurichi Police Station, Crime No.231 of 2013 Sections 148, 294(b), 452, 427 and 307 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Police Station in Crime No.525 of 2013 for offence under Section 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on the remand extension order granted to the detenu by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram in respect of ground case, the said material relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has referred to the order of remand extension granted to the detenu in respect of Crime No.525 of 2013 by stating that the accused Manthimani was produced in Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Villupuram on 28.08.2013 and remanded till 11.09.2013 in the Central Prison, Cuddalore on the same day and lastly his remand was extended till 09.10.2013. Once a document is relied on by the detaining authority, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of the said order to the detenu. Once a document is relied on by the detaining authority, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of the said order to the detenu. But a perusal of the booklet at Page No.197, reveals that though the said remand order speaks about extension till 11.09.2013, there is no material annexed in it with respect to further extension upto 09.10.2013 relied upon by the detaining authority, which in our considered opinion, would definitely deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Mani @ Manthi Mani @ Manivannan, S/o.Sambasivam, made in No.C2/29462/2013 dated 07.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined at the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. 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.