JUDGMENT Parekh, J. - By this petition for the writ of habeas corpus the petitioner-detenu challenges an order of detention dated the 18th September, 1982 passed by one B. B. – Gujral Additional Secretary to the Government of India especially empowered under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (amended) with; view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the argumentation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities. 2. The detenu's case is that he sells cloth and is a licensed money-lender and pays Income-tax. That on 4th May, 1982 he was arrested for an offence said to have been committed under section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. That on the very day he was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to custody for seven days. That on the 5th of May, 1982 he preferred an application being Criminal Application No. 496 of 1982 to be released on bail. That two copies of this application were served on the Government. That at the hearing of this application one Mr. Khan, an Enforcement Officer, was present. That at the hearing the Government Pleader made a concession that the detenu be released on bail. That thereafter he was served with an order dated the 18th of September 1982 along with the grounds and was detained. That in the circumstances he has preferred the present petition. 3. The petition is resisted by the Respondents and in reply they have filed an affidavit denying the correctness of the several submissions and contentions made by the petitioner. 4. At the hearing of this petition, Mr. Merchant, the learned Counsel for the detenu, urged that it is an admitted position that an application was filed on behalf of the detenu on the 5th of May, 1982 which came to be heard on 6th of May 1982. That a copy of this application has been annexed to the petition. That a perusal of this application must clearly go to slow that the statement obtained by the Enforcement Branch was obtained by assaulting the petitioner and under coercion and threat. That this application on behalf of the detenu is in fact a retraction. That a copy of this application has been annexed to the petition. That a perusal of this application must clearly go to slow that the statement obtained by the Enforcement Branch was obtained by assaulting the petitioner and under coercion and threat. That this application on behalf of the detenu is in fact a retraction. That in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, the Respondents have accepted the position that at the time of passing of this impugned order this retraction was not placed before the detaining authority. That this would be a very material document which ought to have been placed before the detaining authority for this would have influenced the detaining authority in one way or the other. That since the retraction was not placed before the detaining authority, the order must stand vitiated. In support of his contention Mr. Merchant relied upon the judgments in Criminal Application No. 123 of 1982 decided on the 25th of April, 1982 with Writ Petition No. 166 of 1982 decided on the 28th of April 1982 and in Criminal Writ Petition No. 34 of 1982 decided on 19th March 1982 as also Criminal Application No. 842 of 1981 decided on 10th July 1981. 5. On behalf of the Respondents Mr. Govilkar accepted the position that this retraction was not placed before the detaining authority nor was it considered by him. 6. In view of this position, we are of the opinion that the detaining authority had no opportunity to consider this retraction which perhaps would have influenced the detaining authority in one way or the other. In the absence of material document not being placed before the detaining authority, the order must now stand vitiated. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty if not otherwise required. Petition allowed.