Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Sup plies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Act) by an order of detention, dated 10th April, 1980, (annexure 4)passed by the District Magistrate Singhbhum, for alleged violation of the restrictions imposed by notification no.21423 P. C. dated 20-12-1954 in the department of Supply and Commerce of the Government of Bihar, with respect to the despatch of salt from the State of Bihar to the State of West bengal, has filed the present writ application for quashing the order of detention. The main ground on which the detention order has been chal lenged by Shri S. B. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the notification, which controlled the movement of salt, itself was not in force and, therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained. 2. I may now briefly state the facts of the case. The petitioner is a partner of a firm, M/s. Makhanlal Pal, who deals in various foodstuffs including salt. On 18-3-1980 the business premises of the firm was inspected by the authorities of the Supply Department and, on the ground of some alleged irregularities, a first information report was lodged by an executive Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioner Ashish Kumar Pal and other with the Chakulia Police, alleging that the accused had indulged into an illegal trade in salt by despatching salt from Chakulia in Bihar to places outside the State and inasmuch as such the trade was banned under notification no.21423 dated 20-12-1954, the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of the first information report, aforesaid, a case under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act was, accordingly, registered by the chakulia Police, being Chakulia P. S. Case no.10 dated 18-3-1980 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sec.471 of the Indian penal Code, against the petitioner and others. Thereafter the petitioner was also arrested by the police. He, having failed to get his bail from the chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Chaibasa, filed a bail application [criminal Miscellaneous no.410 of 1980 (R)] in this Court. Thereafter the petitioner was also arrested by the police. He, having failed to get his bail from the chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Chaibasa, filed a bail application [criminal Miscellaneous no.410 of 1980 (R)] in this Court. As it appears from the order dated 9-4-1980 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the aforesaid bail application, the petitioner undertook not to deal in salt the disposal of the above criminal prosecution pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshed pur. The petitioner was released by this Court on bail. It further appears from another bail order of the same date passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous no.436 of 1980 (R) filed by Rabin kumar Pal, that apart from giving the undertaking not to deal in salt any further till the disposal of the aforesaid case, it was further said that the petitioners were ready and prepared to sell to the Government or to the public, under their direction, the entire stock of 2500 bags of salt with the firm. This Court accordingly directed that it would be open to the Govern ment to purchase the said stock of salt on payment of the price to the petitioners firm or direct them to sell under the control of the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. But in spite of the above stipulation and before the petitioner could be released on the authority of the release order of this Court, he was served with an order of detention on 10-4-1980 in the jail itself and then with the grounds of detention on 12-4-1980 (annexures 4 and 5 respectively ). 3. The petitioner challenges the order of detention, inter alia, on the grounds - (1) that the notification dated 20-2-1954 which imposed a ban on export of salt from any place inside the State of Bihar to any place outside thereof, was no more operative as the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946, under which the said notification was issued, had itself expired on 26-1-1955 by the provisions contained under Article 369 of the Constitution of india ; (2) the order of detention is based on irrelevant and non-existent grounds; and (3) the alleged satisfaction of the detaining authority for the detention of the petitioner was passed without application of mind. 4. 4. So far as the first ground of attack is concerned, it is not necessary to enter into any detailed consideration and discussion thereof inasmuch as we have already accepted the validity of this ground in our judgment delivered yesterday in the case of Hem Raj jhunjhunwala V/s. The State of Bihar and others [cr. W. J. C. no.45 of 1980 (R) disposed of on 13-5-1980], ground no.2 - A copy of the grounds served on the petitioner is annexure 5 and it contains as many as ten grounds of which ground nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are concerned with the despatch of the salt by the petitioner from Chakulia to outside the State of Bihar ; Ground no.5 of the grounds alleges absence of the signature of the purchasers in the cash memos ; ground no.8 alleges that the petitioner was engaged in creating artificial shortage of salt in other parts of the District by the clandestine transport of salt and had indulged in speculative trade for illegal pecuniary gains through blackm arketing of salt without maintaining proper accounts. Ground no.10 says that the petitioner had indulged in this business for a consider able period and if set at liberty, he will again engage in these anti-national activities. 5. It is obvious that the last ground, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner and his partner, did not exist, as there was no occasion for this apprehension of the authority concerned namely, the petitioners in this "clandestine rackets". Ground nos.1 to 4 and others are based on assumption that the ban order of the year 1954 was still in force. For the view that we have taken in the matter, all these grounds become non-exis tent. The other grounds, with respect to the maintenance of the documents, in the absence of any control order, also are not relevant. I would, accord ingly accept the second ground of attack on the order. of detention and would hold that the impugned order is based on either non-existent or irrelevant grounds. Detentions based on such non-exsitent and irrelevent grounds have been held bad times without number by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Reference may be made to only one of the Supreme court in this connection, namely, Dwarika Prasad Sahu V/s. The State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1975 SC 134 ). Detentions based on such non-exsitent and irrelevent grounds have been held bad times without number by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Reference may be made to only one of the Supreme court in this connection, namely, Dwarika Prasad Sahu V/s. The State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1975 SC 134 ). Ground No.3 - The argument advanced under this head on behalf of the petitioner was that the grounds show that the order of detention has been passed without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. 6. The learned Government Pleader tried to refute this argument that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not justiciable. He placed reliance upon the case of Sodhi Shamsher V/s. State of Pepsu ( AIR 1954 sc 276 ). 7. Reliance on the above case, in my view, is entirely misconceived, inasmuch as the ratio decidendi of that case is that when there is a legal ground on which an order of detention was founded, then as to whether the satisfaction of the detaining authority on that ground was reasonable or not could not be investigated by the court. It was in this sense that the Supreme court held that if there was a basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, then a court could not examine the reasonableness of the satisfaction of the authority. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner however, in this regard is entirely different. 8. I, however, do not feel it necessary to enter into any discussion on this question, as the application succeeds on the points already decided above. 9. No. other question remains for consideration and having given my anxious consideration to all the questions canvassed before us by learned counsel for both the parties and on the facts and circumstances of the case, i hold that the order of detention passed against the petitioner cannot be upheld. I would, accordingly, allow this application, quash and set aside the order of detention in quesion and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. Petition allowed.