ORDER : 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in No. 543 of 2015 dated 14.07.2015, whereby the detenu/the petitioner herein, by name Suresh, son of Moorthy, aged 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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 Goonda. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 14.07.2015, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- (i) Adverse Cases:- S No. Name of the Police Station and Crime No. Section of Law 1. P2 Otteri PS Cr. No. 229 of 2015 392 IPC 2. R4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi PS Cr. No. 1413 of 2015 379 IPC 3. P2 Otteri PS Cr. No. 496 of 2015 379 IPC 4. P2 Otteri PS Cr. No. 511 of 2015 379 IPC 5. P2 Otteri PS Cr. No. 515 of 2015 379 IPC (ii) Ground Case:- S No. Name of the Police Station and Crime No. Section of law 1. P2 Otteri PS Cr. No. 517 of 2015 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC 3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr. C.C. Chellappan, 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in the adverse cases in Cr. Nos. 229 of 2015, 1413 of 2015, 496 of 2015, 511 of 2015, 515 of 2015 registered by the P2 Otteri Police Station and R4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station by way of PT Warrant and though a mention has been made by the Detaining Authority in respect of adverse cases No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the ground case in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention, the factum of the remand of the detenu in the 2nd adverse case in Cr. No. 1413 of 2015 has not been reflected. No. 1413 of 2015 has not been reflected. This is indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, submitted that the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. 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. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation. 7. As could be evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, the detenu was arrested by way of P.T. Warrant in all the adverse cases in Cr. Nos. 229 of 2015, 1413 of 2015, 496 of 2015, 511 of 2015 and 515 of 2015 registered by P2 Otteri Police Station and R4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station respectively. But the factum of remand of the detenu in the 2nd adverse case has not been reflected in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention and only a reference with regard to the pendancy of the bail petitions has been made in respect of the ground case and the other adverse cases, viz. Adverse cases No. 1, 3, 4 and 5. When nothing has been stated about the remand of the detenu in the said 2nd adverse case, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse case or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said adverse case. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order. 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.