ORDER
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Challenge is to the order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the first respondent, dubbing one Veera @ Veeramuthu as a Goonda and directing his detention under Section 3 of the Prevention of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The said detenu seems to have been involved in three cases, including offences under Sections 307, 325, 324 I.P.C., etc and he is also said to have been involved in an incident dated 24.10.2002, when he snatched Rs.150/- from the pocket of one Tr. Elumalai, who was proceeding along with one Venkatesan in connection with their work. It is suggested that the incident took place at Nethaji Road, Periyar Nagar and that when this was tried to be stopped by the general public, the detenu pelted stones and the public was greatly disturbed and they closed the shops out of fear of danger to lives and properties.
2. Mr. Sathia Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, however raised only one point. According to him, this order was made without any application of mind. Learned counsel points out that in the grounds it is stated that the incident took place on 24.10.2002 at about 1800 hours, which would be 6.00 p.m., in the evening. He also points out that in the grounds it is further stated that the nearby shopkeepers noticed the atrocious activities and closed down their shops out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Learned counsel, therefore, invites our attention to pages 39 and 40 of the paper book, which reflects the date of incident and points out that the matter is reported at 9’O clock in the morning and the incident is said to have taken place at 6’O Clock in the morning. Learned counsel naturally asks a question as to how the incident which took place in the morning at 6’O Clock was referred to as having taken place at 6’O Clock in the evening. He points out that this is a clear cut example where the detaining authority has not bothered to even read the first information report, in which it is specifically mentioned that the incident took place at “fhiy Rkhh; 6 kzpf;F@ . Learned counsel further says that if the incident took place at 6’O clock in the morning, there was no possibility of any shop remaining open at that time and the shopkeepers closing their shops out of fear.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, tries to get out of this situation by suggesting that this is merely a typographical error. We do not think so. There cannot be a typographical error in respect of the figure, because if the incident took place at 6.00 a.m. and if the authority concerned had said 6.00 p.m., we could understand that it could be a typographical error. However, the detaining authority has mentioned 1800 hours. There cannot be a typographical error in respect of the figures ‘6.00 a.m.’ and ‘1800 hours’. If this is so, it is clear that there was non application of mind. The other documents, which are supplied to the detenu in respect of the ground case also speak of everything having taken place in the morning including the observation mahazar, seizure mahazar etc., If that is so, then there will be no question of the detaining authority asserting in the grounds that the incident took place in the evening. It only shows utter non application of mind. The order must go on this count alone. The writ petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 16.11.2002 is quashed. The detenu Veera @ Veeramuthu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.