Judgment : G. Chockalingam, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1354/2013, dated 16.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, Crime No.2142/2012 302 and 380 IPC 2. R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Crime No.725/2013 379 IPC 3. R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1818/2013 379 and 511 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.2439 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 294(b), 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 focused his argument on the ground that arrest intimation was not sent to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu and there is no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, 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 perusal of the booklet, at page No.325, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is seen that the arrest intimation was given to the Inspector of Police, R-6 Police Station, Kumaran Nagar, Chennai – 83 through “e-post” and not to the father of the detenu. In proof of the same, a receipt was also affixed, in which, it is stated as follows:- "St.Thomas Mount <600 016> LCR Rot.No: O 3499 Counter :15 Name : INS OF POLICE R-6 POLICE ST Address : KUMARAN NAGAR CHENNAI 83 Amount : 10.00 Purpose : E-POST (Ac. Head: ucr Counter Asst. Code : <14:23:52>" 6. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest intimation was sent only to the father of the detenu, but, the post office personnel, instead of typing the receiver's address i.e., the Detenue's father's address, has inadvertently typed the sender's address i.e., Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station and the same is neither willful nor wanton. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest intimation was sent only to the father of the detenu, but, the post office personnel, instead of typing the receiver's address i.e., the Detenue's father's address, has inadvertently typed the sender's address i.e., Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station and the same is neither willful nor wanton. In this regard, a memo has also been filed by the Inspector of Police, R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station and the relevant passage in the said memo, reads as follows:- "2. I submit that the petitioner's son - Dinesh [detenue herein] was arrested by the then Inspector of Police on 05.10.2013 in connection with R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Crime No.2430 of 2013 and when the police personnel went to the post office to give intimation to the Detenue's father through E-Post, the Post Office personnel instead of typing the receiver's address i.e., the Detenue's father's address, has inadvertently typed the sender's address i.e., Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station and the same is reflected in the booklet also, which neither willful nor wanton." Though the said memo was filed by the Inspector of police, to prove the same, he has not obtained any letter from the concerned post office in this regard. This Court already held that the communication of arrest should be informed to the nearest relatives of the kith and kin of the accused. But in this case, the arrest intimation was not given to the father of the detenu. 7. In this regard, it would be useful to extract the principle laid down by this Court, in the decision reported in 2013 4 MLJ (Crl) page 1 [Shanmugam and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another], wherein, this Court has held as under: “25. Before considering the above request, it is mandatory to take note of what is the prevailing system existing in our country. As per the memo filed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, in the place of telegraphic services which was discontinued with effect from 15.07.2013, an advanced system, namely “e post” has been introduced by the Department of Posts, Government of India with effect from 30.01.2004. In the light of the above, we suggest the Government of Tamil Nadu/respondents herein to consider implementation of the following guidelines in order to streamline the procedure for effective communication of intimation of arrest. In the light of the above, we suggest the Government of Tamil Nadu/respondents herein to consider implementation of the following guidelines in order to streamline the procedure for effective communication of intimation of arrest. The officer effecting arrest of a person shall intimate the same to his/her relatives, friends or the person authorised by the detenu through e post, which has come into force from 30.01.2004 and the officer concerned shall follow the e-post system in the manner prescribed. In case of intimation through cell phone/land line, we would suggest the Government of Tamil Nadu that the Secretary to the Government shall invite the officials of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for a consultation to device a mechanism to frame an effective method of communication, including receipt of acknowledgment for the proof of service of communication through BSNL. On reaching such formulation, the respondents shall follow the same for effecting communication of intimation of arrest.” In light of the principle laid down in the decision cited above, on account of the failure of the detaining authority in communicating the arrest of detenu to the family members, 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 herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Dinesh, S/o. Vaithiyanathan, made in BDFGISSV No.1354/2013, dated 16.10.2013, 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. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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.