JUDGMENT Dharmadhikari, J - In this writ petition the order of detention issued by the Government of India dated 23rd of December 1985 detaining one Mohammed Meera. Sahib under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is challenged on various grounds. 2. Shri Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended before us that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal since the representation made by him is not considered by the detailing authority i.e. The Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The order was passed by the said detaining authority in exercise of the power conferred upon him under section 3(1) of the Act and, therefore, he was the authority in his own right Hence under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, he could have passed the order of revocation and, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to consider the representation himself. The consideration of the representation by the Government of India cannot be equated with the consideration of the representation by the detaining authority. He then contended that the order of detention is vitiated by total Don-application of mind, which is apparent from several mistakes and mis-statements. He also contended that in the affidavit filed in reply, an altogether new case is made out about which the detenu had no knowledge and, therefore, had no opportunity of making any effective representation. He then contended that in the last Para of the grounds, privilege is claimed qua only the source of information and not of the information itself and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to have supplied the contents of the said information deleting the portion about which privilege was claimed. In our view it is not necessary to consider and decide all these contentions since the detenu is entitled to be released on the short ground that the order is vitiated by the total non-application of mind. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, we have gone through the relevant material. In Para 3 of the grounds of detention it is alleged that "You were not present during the course of the search and one Mohd. Sheikh Shamsuddin Shaffi with whom you are residing was present." From the material placed on record it is quite obvious that this statement is factually incorrect. The said Mohd. In Para 3 of the grounds of detention it is alleged that "You were not present during the course of the search and one Mohd. Sheikh Shamsuddin Shaffi with whom you are residing was present." From the material placed on record it is quite obvious that this statement is factually incorrect. The said Mohd. Sheikh Shamsuddin Shaffi was also not present when the search was taken. Then in ground No. 4 it is alleged that "In your statement while explaining page I of the seized documents you have stated that one S.P. Durai who is employed in Shipping 'Company in Dubai for the last 3 years and that you requested to Durai to arrange for a job for you in Dubai and that Durai in turn and you be will find out a suitable job for you". It is practically an admitted position that the alleged page 1 is merely an envelope and, therefore, obviously this is a mis-statement offact, Shri Kotwal had also drawn our attention to several other mistakes referred to in the grounds K, M and O of the petition. However, it is not necessary to deal with these mistakes in detail. 4. Further it is clear from the affidavit filed in reply and particularly Para 8 thereof which reads as under: - "As regards to Para 6(E) of the petition. I say that the payments made by the detenu as per details given in the grounds of detention were made on the instructions of the relations of the persons to the payments in Indian currency were made by the detenu. I say that the relations of the recipients in India who are working abroad deposited the amounts in foreign exchange with S.P. Durai and the said amount of foreign exchange which would have otherwise come through the banking channel is a loss to the country and has directly entailed upon the augmentation of the foreign exchange resources of the country". If these averments are tested with the material placed before the detaining authority, copies of which were supplied to the detenu, a conclusion is inevitable that an altogether new case is being made out in the affidavit. This was not the case of the detaining authority initially nor this case is reflected in any of the documents supplied to the detenu. This was not the case of the detaining authority initially nor this case is reflected in any of the documents supplied to the detenu. If this new case is based on some other material, then it is obvious that the copies of the said material were not supplied to the detenu and, therefore, on that count also order of detention will be vitiated. Hence in our view from these material mistakes and mis-statements a conclusion can safely be drawn that the order of detention has been issued in a most ca mal and cavalier manner without proper application of mind. Further an altogether new case is sought to be made out in the affidavit filed in reply of which the detenu bad no knowledge. If this is so then the detenu's right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is violated. Therefore taking any view of the matter, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it will have to be held that the order of detention is vitiated. 5. Hence Rule is made absolute and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Petition allowed.