JUDGMENT A. SELVAM, J. 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 M.H.S. Confdl No. 48 of 2014, dated 17.07.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Sekar @ Seeranthai, S/o Seenisamy and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases: (i) Crime No. 568 of 2013, Alangulam Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Crime No. 178 of 2013, Pappakudi Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 read with 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 07.07.2014, one Jeyasiri, Sub Inspector of Police has given a complaint against the detenu to the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No. 342 of 2014 under Sections 294(b), 353, 307, 506(ii) and 379 (sand theft) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz. second respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as Goonda 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. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 6. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted and the same has not been disposed of without delay and further the detaining authority has erroneously relied upon similar case particulars and under the said circumstances the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the detaining authority after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has rightly derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately passed the impugned detention order and therefore the same does not require for any interference. 8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, four clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay. 9. In fact, the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2413 of 2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner therein has not committed any offence earlier and nobody has sustained injuries and under the said circumstances, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli has granted bail to him. 10. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the detenu has involved in two adverse cases. 11. Considering the fact that the detenu has involved in two adverse cases and also committed serious offence in ground case, the detaining authority has erroneously relied upon the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2413 of 2014. To put in short, the facts mentioned in the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2413 of 2014 are not similar to that of the present case. Therefore the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in deriving subjective satisfaction and therefore viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 12. To put in short, the facts mentioned in the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2413 of 2014 are not similar to that of the present case. Therefore the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in deriving subjective satisfaction and therefore viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 12. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in M.H.S. Confdl No. 48 of 2014, dated 17.07.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz. Sekar @ Seeranthai, S/o Seenisamy at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.