JUDGMENT Jahagirdar J.-By an order dated 12th of October 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra one Nareshkumar Dinkarrai Dhorda, who is the petitioner before us, was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act". The grounds of detention, which formed the basis of that order of detention, were formulated on the same day. Neither the order of detention nor the grounds of detention could be served upon the petitioner till 4th of July 1984. On the last mentioned date it was done and the petitioner was taken into custody, 2. The order of detention mentions that it was necessary to prevent the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods and, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act the Government was pleased to direct that he be detained under the said Act. The grounds of detention mention the basic facts on which the necessary inference that the petitioner was indulging in prejudicial activities such as smuggling or the abetment of smuggling was drawn and that it was thought necessary to detain him to prevent him from, pursuing the said prejudicial activities. In paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that pursuant to secret information received on 21st of July 1983 the officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs Preventive Collectorate went to Mohamedali Road and noticed the petitioner whom they proceeded to apprehend. His personal search resulted in the recovery of one newspaper wrapped bundle containing 20 foreign marked gold hiscuits, totally valued at Rs. 4,14,000/- 3. Thereafter it has been mentioned that the petitioner made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Certain steps taken during the course of the investigation are also detailed in the grounds of detention. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention it has been stated, among other things, as follows: "Thereafter you were escorted to Customs Office and the said packet was opened and on examination it was found to contain 20 foreign marked gold hiscuits weighing 2000 tolas". The conclusion drawn by the detaining authority contained in paragraph II of the grounds of detention is as follows: "From the above it is evident that you are deeply involved in smuggling activities. Government, therefore, considers... The conclusion drawn by the detaining authority contained in paragraph II of the grounds of detention is as follows: "From the above it is evident that you are deeply involved in smuggling activities. Government, therefore, considers... it necessary to detain you under section. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, in order to prevent you from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future." 4, Mr. Keswani, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on several grounds. In the first place, he contended that there was no material before the detaining authority to indicate that what was seized from the petitioner was gold or that it was smuggled gold, He also contended that the order of detention is vitiated because the activity which the petitioner was allegedly engaged in was not smuggling activity or the abetment of smuggling activity and, therefore, be could not be detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling or abetting the smuggling activity. We have not thought it necessary to examine these contentions in great details because the petitioner should succeed in this petition on a much narrower ground, namely that there is a non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, We have already mentioned above that the grounds of detention stated that the petitioner was found carrying a newspaper wrapped bundle containing 20 foreign marked gold hiscuits totally valued at Rs. 4,14,000/-. In this opening paragraph of the grounds of detention the weight of each gold hiscuit has not been mentioned at all. On the other hand, in paragraph 4, part of which we have extracted above, it has been mentioned that the packet was opencast and on examination it was found to contain 20 foreign marked gold hiscuits weighing 2,000 tolas. Mr. Keswani has invited our attention to the various documents on which the detaining authority has placed reliance. For example, there is the panchanama dated 21st July 1983 in which it is clearly mentioned that the packet which the petitioner was carrying contained 20 yellow metal pieces of 10 tolas each appearing as gold. This necessarily meant that the petitioner was carrying 200 tolas of gold. Other documents also refer to the seizure of 20 hiscuits of 10 tolas each. This necessarily meant that the petitioner was carrying 200 tolas of gold. Other documents also refer to the seizure of 20 hiscuits of 10 tolas each. Obviously, therefore, the material which was there before the detaining authority showed that the petitioner was carrying 200 tolas of gold and not more. The grounds of detention, however, proceed to mention that the petitioner was found carrying 20 hiscuits weighing 2,000 tolas. Mr. Keswani, therefore, is demonstrably right in contending that this shows total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. When naturally called upon to defend this order of detention the detaining authority in paragraph 6 of his affidavit in reply has stated that he has carefully considered the seizure panchanama and the confessional statement of the detenu and the value of the gold seized from the person of the detenu. Thereafter he proceeds to state as follows: "I say that there is, therefore no Cause for me to assume or proceed on the assumption that 2000 tolas of contra band gold was found from the detenu as contended." This is probably in reply to the contention made in the petition that the detaining authority proceeded on the assumption that 2,000 tolas of contraband gold were found from him. But then, the detaining authority does not say a word as to why he mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was carrying 2,000 tolas of gold. If every document which was relevant showed that the petitioner was carrying only 200 tolas of gold, it has not been explained as to why the detaining authority thought it fit to hold that the petitioner was carrying 2,000 tolas of gold and then proceed to draw the inference which he did in paragraph II of the grounds of detention. The non-application of mind, in our opinion, is writ large on the grounds of detention as well as the order of detention. 5. Mr. More, the learned Public Prosecutor, wanted to bring to our notice that a correction was issued sometime in April 1984 to the grounds of detention because it obviously contained a typographical error, but this has not been disclosed to us in the affidavit in reply. 5. Mr. More, the learned Public Prosecutor, wanted to bring to our notice that a correction was issued sometime in April 1984 to the grounds of detention because it obviously contained a typographical error, but this has not been disclosed to us in the affidavit in reply. The question is whether on the date of detention and on the day on which the grounds were formulated the detaining authority understood that the petitioner was carrying 200 or 2000 tolas of gold. To this question no answer is available in the affidavit in reply filed to this petition. 6. The order of detention is not sustainable in law and is set aside. The petitioner is accordingly directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.