JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the impugned order BCDFGISSSV No.249/2022 dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely Anand, S/o.Nagaraju, aged about 34 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. 1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 01.03.2023, this Court made the following order: 2. The aforementioned order made in the 01.03.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also. 3. There are two adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.192 of 2022 on the file of C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. 4. Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. In the Admission Board, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail being impaired point was projected (as would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order dated 01.03.2023) but in the final hearing today, Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner pointed out that the impugned preventive detention order is dated 17.08.2022, it was served on the detenu on the same day i.e., 17.08.2022 (17.08.2022 becomes the date of formal arrest i.e., arrest pursuant to the impugned preventive detention order as the detenu was already incarcerated on and from 13.07.2022) but the grounds of impugned preventive detention order says that it has been served on the detenu on 10.08.2022. This is not in one page but in all the pages in the grounds of impugned preventive detention order both in English and Tamil. The impugned preventive detention order and seal on the reverse are as follows: 6. The seal on all the pages on the reverse of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order is like this: 7. The above seals also bring to light another factor and that is, while the seal on reverse of the impugned preventive detention order show that the detenu has affixed his LHT (Left Hand Thumb impression), the seal on the reverse of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order shows that the detenu has signed the same. 8. The aforementioned utter confusion/melee (we are constrained to say so inspite of utmost restraint) has adversely impacted the detenu''s sanctus constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this sanctus constitutional right is ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Such a sanctus constitutional right being impaired, leads to the impugned preventive detention order getting vitiated and becoming liable for dislodgement in this habeas corpus legal drill on hand. 9. By way of post script, we are calling for a report from the third respondent, that would not come in the way of the detenu being released forthwith if not required in any other matter pursuant to impugned preventive detention order being set aside. 10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 17.08.2022 bearing reference No.249/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Anand, aged 34 years, son of Thiru.Nagaraju is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.