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 Memo No.462/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.590 of 2009 Section 4 of TNPWH Act 2. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.603 of 2010 Sections 341, 323, 307(3) Counts, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No.925 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 4. P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No.932 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 5. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.853 of 2013 Sections 341, 392, 427, 353, 336 and 506(ii) IPC 6. K-1, Sembium Police Station, Crime No.861 of 2013 Sections 341, 392, 427, 353, 323, 336 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station in Crime No.1019 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition 5has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority has furnished arrest memos effected in 4th to 6th adverse cases and ground case in the booklet, informing that intimation has been given to the mother of detenu, but the age of the mother of detenu has been wrongly mentioned as 45 in one arrest memo and 35 in others, 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. There is a mention about 6 adverse cases and one ground case in the impugned order of detention and arrest memos in respect of 4th to 6th adverse cases and ground case have been annexed in the booklet at Page Nos.86, 134, 166 and 214, stating that arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother. 5. There is a mention about 6 adverse cases and one ground case in the impugned order of detention and arrest memos in respect of 4th to 6th adverse cases and ground case have been annexed in the booklet at Page Nos.86, 134, 166 and 214, stating that arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother. Though communication of arrest has been sent to the right person, viz., mother as mandated, age of the mother shown in the said arrest memos makes us arrive at an illogical conclusion to the effect that the arrest memo in respect of Crime No.932 of 2013, 4th adverse case, shows the age of mother as 45, whereas the age of mother in 5th, 6th adverse cases and ground case has been found mentioned as 35. When the detenu is aged about 24 years old at the time of passing of detention order, it is hardly believable to assume the age of mother as 35 as indicated in the arrest memos in respect of 5th and 6th adverse cases and ground case. Therefore, it can be easily presumed that the material information furnished to the detenu regarding intimation of arrest lacks essential element and it creates doubt and confusion on the mind of detenu as to whether the communication has been sent properly to the right person. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. In the case on hand, though there is a proof of exhibiting intimation of arrest in adverse and ground cases to the family member of the detenu, namely, mother, owing to illogical reflection of the age of mother, 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 hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Gopi @ Lion Gopi, S/o.Manohar, made in Memo No.462/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.07.2013, 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.