Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The mother of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in Memo No.882/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 03.09.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.268/2013 341, 294(b), 307 IPC 2. S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.298/2013 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 IPC 3. 3 T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime No.1278/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No.1011/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the detaining authority has relied on the remand order and also stated that the remand period was extended till 04.09.2013, no material is supplied to the detenu and therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. We have heard Mr. P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “3. .... Further, the arrest intimation of the accused Thiru. Karthik was given to his friend Thiru.Ashok Kumar on the same day. Later, the Inspector of Police produced accused Thiru.Karthik before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, Chennai on 07.08.2013 who ordered the accused to be remanded till 21.08.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as remand prisoner. His remand period was further extended till 04.09.2013. The investigation of the case is not yet over. ... 6. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the detaining authority has observed that the accused Karthik was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, on 07.08.2013 and he was ordered to be remanded till 21.08.2013 and his remand period was further extended till 04.09.2013. The investigation of the case is not yet over. ... 6. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the detaining authority has observed that the accused Karthik was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, on 07.08.2013 and he was ordered to be remanded till 21.08.2013 and his remand period was further extended till 04.09.2013. While verifying the same with the booklet at page no.131, it is seen that the accused was not produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur on 21.08.2013 and only the Letter of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai vide Lr.No.10/R1/2012 dated 21.08.2013 is submitted. In the said Remand Extension Order dated 21.08.2013, there is no mentioning about the extension of remand of the accused and it is quite clear that the remand extension order till 04.09.2013 is not supplied to the detenu. It is mandatory that any document relied on by the detaining authority has to be necessarily supplied to the detenu. Non-furnishing of the same deprives the constitutional right of the detenu to make an effective representation. Hence, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.882/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Karthik in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.