Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No. 961/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 11.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 752 of 2013 Sections 302 and 201 IPC 2. P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No. 1554 of 2013 Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 05.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1559 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 363, 336, 427, 397, 307 and 506 (ii) 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 has stated about the remand of detenu in Crime No. 1554 of 2013, 2nd adverse 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 of detenu in respect of Crime No. 1554 of 2013 by stating that Thiru.Srinivasan is in remand in P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime Nos. 1554 of 2013 and 1559 of 2013 and he has moved a bail application for P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 1559 of 2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 11380 of 2013 and the same is pending. Once an order is relied on by the detaining authority, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of the said remand order to the detenu. M.P. No. 11380 of 2013 and the same is pending. Once an order is relied on by the detaining authority, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of the said remand order to the detenu. But a perusal of the booklet, reveals that though the impugned order speaks about the remand of detenu in Crime No. 1554 of 2013, there is no material annexed in it with respect to the said remand, 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 1st respondent, detaining the detenu Srinivasan, S/o Dhandapani, made in Memo No. 961/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined 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. 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.