ORDER : V.D. Tulzapurkar, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant who failed to get the detention order passed against his brother Jiwanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel (detenu) quashed in the Gujarat High Court has come up in appeal to this Court. 3. The detention order in question was passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India on 27th June 1984 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing the detenue from engaging in, keeping and storing smuggled goods and on the same day grounds of detention running into over 50 pages were served upon him. The appellant challenged his brother's detention in the Gujarat High Court on several grounds but the High Court negatived the grounds and confirmed the detention. 4. Out of the several grounds that were urged before the Gujarat Court counsel for the appellant has pressed before us only one ground, namely, that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated because the most relevant material had not been placed before it by the sponsoring authority and, therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed and in our view that ground should succeed. 5. On 231d July, 1983 the factory premises of the detenue in Surat 4 were raided by the Customs Authorities and uncut diamonds of the value of Rs. 20, 23,000/- and other incriminatory documents were seized by the concerncd officer under reasonable belief that the contraband was smuggled. The detenue tried to escape from the premises but he was apprehended. On completing the investigation by 21st 5 December 1983 the Customs Authorities issued a show cause notice dated 13th January 1984 to the detenu calling upon him why the contraband should not be confiscated and personal penalty be not imposed upon him. The detenu sent the detailed reply on 5th March 1984 to the show cause notice explaining his entire case and putting forth two or three material pleas. In the first place he completely went back upon his earlier statements recorded by the Customs Authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act clearly suggesting that those were concocted statements and not his own; in other words he retracted the earlier statement. In the first place he completely went back upon his earlier statements recorded by the Customs Authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act clearly suggesting that those were concocted statements and not his own; in other words he retracted the earlier statement. Secondly he challenged the presumption that was raised against him under section 123 of the Customs Act on the ground that there was no material on the basis of which any reasonable belief required thereunder could be held by the Custom Officer. Thirdly he pointed out that the Government's import and export policy regarding diamonds was such that no one could have any motive to smuggle diamonds into India. Admittedly neither the show cause notice dated 13th January 1984 nor the detenu's reply dated 5th March 1984 was forwarded by the sponsoring authority (The Customs) to the detaining authority which ultimately passed the detention order on 27th June 1984. Counsel pointed out that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu clearly show that the detaining authority heavily relied upon the earlier statements said to have been made by the detenu to the Customs Officer under section 108 for the purpose of issuing the detention order but the most relevant material, namely, the detenu's reply dated 5th March 1984 to the show cause notice had not been placed before the detaining authority though it was absolutely essential to do so. Counsel urged that the retraction of the earlier statements by the detenu among other things found a place in the reply dated 5th March 1984 and since this relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority the subjective satisfaction which is required to be arrived at by the detaining authority about the necessity to detain the detenu before issuing the detention order must be regarded as having been vitiated. Counsel submitted if this relevant material was placed before the detaining authority one would not be sure whether the detaining authority would or would not have passed the impugned order. We find considerable force in this contention. 6. It cannot be disputed that the show cause notice and the detenu's reply thereto, particularly the latter, though these documents formed part of adjudication proceedings constituted the most relevant mate- rial which was essential to be placed before the detaining authority before the issuance of the impugned order and admittedly this has not been done. 6. It cannot be disputed that the show cause notice and the detenu's reply thereto, particularly the latter, though these documents formed part of adjudication proceedings constituted the most relevant mate- rial which was essential to be placed before the detaining authority before the issuance of the impugned order and admittedly this has not been done. All that has been stated on behalf of the respondent in the Counter Affidavit of Shri Agnihotri, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 11th April, 1985 is that this reply dated 5th March 1984 was considered by the detaining authority along with the detenu's representation made by him against the detention order. It has further been averred that the said representation of the detenu along with the reply was considered by the Advisory Board and after considering all the facts the Advisory Board had opined that there was sufficient cause for detention. But in our view such post fact consideration of the detenu's reply dated 5th March 1984 after the impugned detention order had been served upon the detenu cannot fill up the lacuna of non-consideration thereof by the detaining authority before the issuance of the detention order. The relevant material, namely the detenu's reply dated 5th March 1984 certainly had a bearing and would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other before issuing the detention order and such relevant material was not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority at the appropriate time and this in our view would go to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 7. The High Court has given two reasons for getting over this lacuna. First that the show cause notice as also the reply thereto, particularly the latter were documents which formed part of an independent and separate proceeding, namely, adjudication proceedings undertaken by the Customs Authorities and therefore, it was not necessary that this material should have been placed before the detaining authority. First that the show cause notice as also the reply thereto, particularly the latter were documents which formed part of an independent and separate proceeding, namely, adjudication proceedings undertaken by the Customs Authorities and therefore, it was not necessary that this material should have been placed before the detaining authority. Secondly the High Court relied upon some observations made by this Court in the case of Shrimati Bhagwati v. The Administrator & Ors., decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 7633 of 1981 where it appears that the show cause notice that had been issued by the Customs Authority to the detenu had not been forwarded by the Customs Authority to the detaining authority and when that was made a ground of attack to the detention order on the basis that the same had vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority this Court observed thus : "Nor do we see how the fact that a show cause notice was issued by the Customs Authorities to the petitioner's husband would be relevant in so far as the detention is concerned. It could not, in our opinion, influence the determination of the question of detention either way." In our view neither of the reasons is valid. In the first place the question is not whether the material which has been withheld from the detaining authority formed part of any separate or independent proceedings like adjudication proceedings or not but the really question is whether the material is relevant and would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority or not ; in whatever proceedings it might have come to be recorded. The reply to the show cause notice cannot be said to be irrelevant material ; on the other hand the reply in the instant case which contained a retraction of his earlier statements recorded under section 108 was most relevant and would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in one way or the other and as such it ought to have been placed before the detaining authority. As regards the second reason mentioned by the High Court we feel that the observations on which reliance has been placed must be confined to the facts of that case and the Court in that case merely dealt with the show cause notice that had been issued by the Customs authorities and served on the detenu and there was no question of any reply of the detenu being considered to be irrelevant. In the instant case not merely the show cause notice but the reply of the detenu to the show cause notice which was certainly most relevant material ought to have been placed before the detaining authority. The observations relied upon by the Gujarat High Court would be of no avail to the respondents in the instant case. The position in law in this behalf is well settled by two decisions of this Court, one in Asha Devi's' case and the other in Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1983 (2) SCC 392 . In the circumstances we are clearly of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be regarded as having been vitiated in view of the fact that the relevant material was not placed before it by the sponsoring authority. 8. It is unfortunate that the detenu who was found with contraband of the value of Rs. 20, 23,000/- is required to be released by this Court but we must observe that such result is brought about by the sheer negligence on the part of the sponsoring authority in not furnishing relevant material to the detaining authority before the latter proceeded to pass the detention order. This is a clear case of failure to observe procedural safeguards leading to the release of the detenu who might be really concerned in illicit activity. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the detention order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith. 9. In view of the above order in the appeal there will be no order on the writ petition.