Judgment S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C3 D.O. No. 47/2014 dated 15.06.2014, whereby he detenu/son of the petitioner, by name, Saravanan, son of Govindasamy, aged 27 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a “BLACK MARKETEER”. 2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr. B. Sundarapandian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the First Information Report, which is found in page No.69 of the booklet, it was mentioned that the crime was registered on 30.04.2014, whereas in 161 statement, which is found is page Nos. 72, 73 and 74, it was mentioned that the crime was registered on 29.4.2014, i.e., one day prior to the date of registration of the case as found in FIR. It shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Thus, the detention order is vitiated on this ground and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts. 6. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that in 161 Statement, which is found in page Nos.72, 73 and 74, the date of registration of the case was mentioned as “29.4.2014”, whereas in the FIR, the date of registration of the case was mentioned as “30.4.2014” and the difference in the date of registration of the case is not properly explained by the detaining authority and this shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. 8. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in C3 D.O.No.47/2014 dated 15.06.2014 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.