JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1586/2013, dated 11.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station Crime No.518 of 2010 147, 148, 341, 457, 307, 302 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. J-5 Shastri Nagar Police Station Crime No.3845/2012 392 IPC 3. J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.777/2013 457, 380 IPC 4. J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1086/2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station in Crime No.1465 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the order of detention has been passed on 11.11.2013 and the remand extension order dated 11.11.2013 has been made available to the authority only on 13.11.2013. Since the detaining authority relied on the said document for clamping the order of detention, there is non-application of mind on his part. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in the similar case relied on by the detaining authority, in the Tamil version of the bail order, the year of the case numbers has been shown as Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2011 instead of Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2012. The said variation has caused confusion in the mind of the detenu and he has been prevented from making effective representation. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. By perusal of the booklet, particularly at Page No.177, it is seen that the remand of the detenu in the ground case has been extended till 25.11.2013 and the copy of the said order has been made available to the detaining authority only on 13.11.2013. 5. By perusal of the booklet, particularly at Page No.177, it is seen that the remand of the detenu in the ground case has been extended till 25.11.2013 and the copy of the said order has been made available to the detaining authority only on 13.11.2013. Therefore, the awareness expressed by the detaining authority in para 4 of the grounds of detention as to the judicial remand of the detenu in the ground case on the date of passing of the detention order is not supported by material. Further, in the similar case relied on by the detaining authority, where bail was granted in respect of the case in Crime No.1062 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2012, in the Tamil Version at Page No.197 of the booklet, the year of the case numbers has been wrongly mentioned as Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2011 instead of Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2012. The said variation prevented the detenu from making effective representation for the redressal of his grievance. On these grounds, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.1586/2013 dated 11.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Palaniin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.