Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu himself. 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 Memo No. 879/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 03.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Crime No. 78 of 2009 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. M-4, Red Hills Police Station, Crime No. 271 of 2010 Sections 454 and 380 IPC 3. K-11, CMBT Police Station, Crime No. 744 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 4. V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Crime No. 1358 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 5. V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Crime No. 1375 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station in Crime No. 1379 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 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 focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority failed to ask clarification from the sponsoring authority as to whom exactly the arrest intimation was served, as the name found mentioned in the impugned order differs from the one stated in the booklet, 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. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No. 3 of the order:- "3. Further, the arrest intimation of the accused Thiru. Selvam was given to his father Thiru. Further, the arrest intimation of the accused Thiru. Selvam was given to his father Thiru. Mahendran by speed post." A close reading of the booklet at Page No. 65, arrest memo, it is seen that arrest of the accused was intimated to his younger brother Mahendran, but to the contrary, the detaining authority has mentioned in the impugned order that the arrest intimation of the accused was given to his father. After a person is taken into 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 into 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. But in the case on hand, there is a confusion with regard to intimation of arrest of detenu. Though it is stated that intimation was given to his father, there is no proof to that effect and also there is no proof to exhibit such intimation of arrest to the other family members of the detenu and thus the detention order would be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, 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, Selvam, S/o Kumar made in Memo No. 879/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 03.09.2013, 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.