ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the detenu. He has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.44/2015, dated 07.12.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.815 of 2015 registered on the file of Suchindrum Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 342, 323, 307 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and the following two adverse cases: (i) Crime No.82 of 2014 registered on the file of Boothapandy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code @ 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; and (ii) Crime No.297 of 2014 registered on the file of Marthandam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of "Goonda" and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order. The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise additional grounds and after considering the prayer, we permit the same. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the additional grounds, which are as follows: “In the first adverse case namely, Crime No.82 of 2014 of Boothapandy Police Station, arrest intimation was not given to a family member or a friend of the detenu. The said aspect is obvious from the signature of one Andro, which is found in the Arrest Memo dated 19.04.2014. After furnishing a copy of the said Arrest Memo, the Sponsoring Authority also supplied a clean copy and both are available in the booklet supplied to the detenu. The said aspect is obvious from the signature of one Andro, which is found in the Arrest Memo dated 19.04.2014. After furnishing a copy of the said Arrest Memo, the Sponsoring Authority also supplied a clean copy and both are available in the booklet supplied to the detenu. In the Arrest Memo, a copy of which is found at page No.21, in Column No.2, only the crime number and the penal provisions are mentioned, without mentioning the police station in which the said crime number was registered, and in Column No.7, the place of detention was shown to be………without mentioning the name of the police station. Though Salini, wife of the detenu was noted to be the person to whom arrest intimation was given, the Arrest Memo was signed by another person by name Andro as witness who got intimation, whereas, all the omissions found in the Arrest Memo came to be supplied in the clean copy, besides wrongly stating the name of the person signed as witness to be Salini”. A comparison of the both will show that there is a material difference between the two. The said discrepancies are found in the copies of documents available at page Nos.21 and 23 of the booklet. The said discrepancies were not adverted to by the Detaining Authority. Had the Detaining Authority adverted to the same, he would have called for a clarification and the fact that he had not called for a clarification regarding the same, will show non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority regarding a relied on material and mechanical signing of the order of detention prepared by his subordinates or police. 5. The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also heard. 6. A perusal of the copy of Arrest Memo in the first adverse case which is available at Page No.21 of the booklet supplied to the detenu shows that in column No.2, the arrest intimation did not mention the name of the police station, but the Crime number and penal provisions alone came to be noted as Crime No.82/2014 under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC. The place of detention, [Column No.7] after arrest of the detenu in the said case, has also been noted in the said Arrest Memo as…….without mentioning the name and place of the police station. In column No. 12, the person to whom intimation was given, has been noted as Salini W/o. Stalin (the detenu). But in the column meant for the signature of the witness, one J.Andro S/o. Jeya Singh has signed. 7. In the clean copy which is found at page No.23, in column No.2, Crime Number and the name of the Police Station have been noted. Though Crime Number and penal provisions came to be noted in Column No.2 itself of the Arrest Memo, copy of which is found at page No.21 and leaving Column No.3 blank and noting “-do-” in column No.4 simply to mean as found above, the clean copy seems to have been prepared, filling all the columns with proper particulars. The same is also the case of Column No.7. In the copy of the original Arrest Memo found at page No.21, without mentioning the place of police station, simply………has been noted, whereas, in the clean copy found at page No.23, Column No. 7 has been filled with “Boothapandi P.S.” The other columns namely Column Nos.8 to 11 were found with blanks, whereas in the clean copy, Column Nos.8 to 10 have been noted with the word…… whereas Column No.11 has been noted with the word “Mk”;. All these material contradictions between the copy of the Arrest Memo found at page No.21 and the clean copy of the same found at page 23 did not catch the attention of the Detaining Authority. 8. Likewise, in the clean copy of the Arrest Memo which is found at page No.23, under the caption……..for the signature of the witness, the words…… came to be typed, as against the particulars found in the original Arrest Memo, copy of which is found at page No.21. The fact that it was signed by Andro S/o. Jeyasingh has been suppressed and a wrong particular came to be noted in the clean copy and came to be certified by the Sponsoring Authority as true copy. The said vital discrepancies also did not catch the attention of the Detaining Authority. 9. The fact that it was signed by Andro S/o. Jeyasingh has been suppressed and a wrong particular came to be noted in the clean copy and came to be certified by the Sponsoring Authority as true copy. The said vital discrepancies also did not catch the attention of the Detaining Authority. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Detaining Authority would have called for a clarification regarding the same, had he adverted to the said documents and the failure to do so will show that the Detaining Authority, without applying his mind, chose to sign the order of detention mechanically. 10. Though it has not been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is a material discrepancy regarding the intimation allegedly given to the wife of the detenu when he was arrested in the first adverse case. A wrong “clean copy” deliberately prepared with wrong particulars, came to be supplied by the Sponsoring Authority. From the perusal of the said documents, this Court is able to see that no friend or relative of the detenu was given intimation of his arrest in the first adverse case. In view of the above discussions and observations, this Court comes to the conclusion that the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated and it cannot stand the scrutiny of this Court. 11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the order of detention dated 07.12.2015, made in P.D.No.44/2015, by the second respondent, District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and directs the release of the detenu by name Stalin @ Sali, S/o. Natarajan, aged about 25 years forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order.