Judgment 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.10/2014, dated 28.10.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Balusamy, Son of Chinnathambi and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that on 19.09.2014, one Janaki has given a complaint against the detenu in Pasupathipalayam Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.591 of 2014 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 3. The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after considering the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a sexual offender and thereby branded him under the said caption by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu as petitioner. 4. Despite of repeated adjournments, on the side of the respondents counter has not been filed. Under the said circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted to the concerned authority and the same has not been disposed of and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 6. As pointed out earlier, despite of repeated adjournments, counter has not been filed on the side of the respondents. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner can easily be accepted and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. 6. As pointed out earlier, despite of repeated adjournments, counter has not been filed on the side of the respondents. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner can easily be accepted and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.10/2014, dated 28.10.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Balusamy, Son of Chinnathambi at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.