A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu challenges the legality and validity of the order of his detention dated 1/06/1988 passed by the District Magistrate) Kheda under the provisions of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner was having a licence for fair price shop at village Fatepur District Kheda. His shop was searched by the Mamlatdar in the month of August 1987 Thereafter further search was made by the Supply Inspector and again some enquiry was also made by the office of the Collector. On the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation by the respective officers and which was placed before the detaining authority the detaining authority (i. e the District Magistrate Kheda) came to the conclusion that the petitioner-detenu was indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities viz. pamoline oil sugar rice and wheat. Therefore he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner so as to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that copies of several documents referred to in the grounds of detention and which have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority while arriving at the necessary satisfaction as required under the provisions of the Act have not been supplied to the detenu and thus the constitutional mandate contained in Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution is violated. In his submission had sufficient material been communicated to him the petitioner-detenu would have been able to make representation against that material which was relied upon for arriving at the necessary satisfaction for passing the impugned order. Since the basic facts meaning thereby the material facts Constituting the grounds of detention had not been communicated to the detenu the detenu could not make effective and adequate representation and thus the mandate given under Art. 22 (5) has not been complied with. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the Mamlatdar had received complaints from the members of public regarding the alleged irregularities in the maintenance of distribution and the stock of essential commodities. The copies of the complaints alleged to have been received by the Mamlatdar have not been supplied on the detenu. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the Mamlatdar had received complaints from the members of public regarding the alleged irregularities in the maintenance of distribution and the stock of essential commodities. The copies of the complaints alleged to have been received by the Mamlatdar have not been supplied on the detenu. It is also alleged that the reports made by the Mamlatdar the Supply Inspector and the departmental branch of the Collectors office have also not been made available to the detenu. As far as these documents are concerned it is obvious that these documents cannot be said to be the basic facts constituting the grounds of detention. The facts constituting the offence or the illegal or irregular activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodities would be the basic facts. The complaint made to the Mamlatdar by the members of the public and the opinion formed by the Mamlatdar the Supply Inspector and some other officer of the Collectors office would be their opinions. Their opinions may be correct or may not be corrrect. But their opinions do not form part of the basic facts constituting the offence or the illegal or irregular activity which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of the supply of essential commodities. At the most these are subsidiary facts. ( 5 ) IN a given case some of the facts which may apparently be called subsidiary assume the character of basic facts and might have been considered as the basis of detention. Hence such documents may be considered necessary to be supplied to the detenu for enabling him to make effective and adequate representation. For example this was so held by this Court in the case of Sarojben Pravinchandra Kinariwala v. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 GLH 313. In that case intelligence report regarding the contraband gold which was to be delivered to the detenu was not made available to the detenu. The Court on facts of the case found that the detaining authority had specifically called for a copy of the intelligence report. In the grounds of detention also the detaining authority mentioned the gist of the intelligence report and as held by the Court the very basis of the order of detention was the intelligence report. The Court on facts of the case found that the detaining authority had specifically called for a copy of the intelligence report. In the grounds of detention also the detaining authority mentioned the gist of the intelligence report and as held by the Court the very basis of the order of detention was the intelligence report. Thus in the facts of the case the Court held that the intelligence report was the basic fact and therefore it was required to be communicated to the detenu. ( 6 ) BUT in the instant case we do not find that the report of the Mamlatdar the Supply Inspector and the report of the departmental branch of Collectors office constitute the basic facts regarding the alleged offences and the illegal activities of the detenu. These are at most subsidiary facts and therefore even though the reference to the same is made in grounds of detention the same is not required to be supplied to the detenu. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hansmukh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 28 . It was a case under COFEPOSA. In para 16 of the judgment after referring to its earlier decision the Supreme Court has observed as follows:" From these decisions it is clear that while the expression grounds in Art. 22 (5) and for that matter in Sec. 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA includes not only conclusions of fact but also all the basic facts on which those conclusions are founded they are different from subsidiary facts or further particulars of these basic facts The distinction between basic facts which are essential factual constituents of the grounds and their further particulars or subsidiary details is important. While the basic facts being integral part of the grounds must according to Sec. 3 (3) of COFEPOSA be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of detention further particulars of those grounds in compliance with the second constitutional imperative spelled out from Art. 22 (5) in Khudi Rams ease ( AIR 1975 SC 550 ) are required to be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be practicable with reasonable expedition. It follows that if in a case the so called grounds of detention communicated to the detenu lack the basic or primary facts on which the conclusions of fact stated therein are founded and this deficiency is not made good and communicated to the detenu within the period specified in Sec. 3 (3) the omission will be fatal to the validity of the detention. If however the grounds communicated are elaborate and contain all the basic facts but are not comprehensive enough to cover all the details or particulars of the basic facts such particulars also must be supplied to the detenu if asked for by him with reasonable expedition within a reasonable time"the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is followed by a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Vijay Champaklal Shah v. Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of India and Ors [1985 (2)] 26 (2) GLR 974. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision clearly indicate that grounds do not include the subsidiary facts or further particulars or marginal peripheral and/or incidental material. The detaining authority may look at the report of the Mamlatdar and report of other officers but ultimately the detaining authority itself has got to look at the primary material for arriving at the requisite satisfaction. Reports of other officers would contain their opinion. But the basic documents will be the primary material. In the instant case the primary material would be the books of accounts and other records maintained by the detenu while running the fair price shop By no stretch of reasoning the reports of subordinate officers can be said to be the basic facts containing the grounds of detention. Therefore the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner detenu that since the copies of the report of the Mamlatdar and that of Supply Inspector and also the report of investigation carried out by the departmental branch of Collectors office are not supplied to the detenu the petitioner has been deprived of his right of making effective representation cannot be accepted and the same is required to be rejected. ( 8 ) HOWEVER the learned Counsel for the petitioner is on a stronger footing when he has pointed out that copies of bill books which have been referred to in the grounds of detention and in respects of which irregularities and illegalities are alleged to have been committed are not supplied to the detenu. It could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the copies of the bill books in respect of pamoline oil sugar wheat and rice that is the commodities in question have not been supplied to the detenu. On going through the grounds of detention it is evident that there is profuse reference to bill books in respect of the aforesaid commodities. It is also clear that the bills are the primary material from which the entries will be posted in the stock register. While distributing the essential commodities the first document to be prepared would be a bill. Whether the bill books were blank or written or they were written falsely is altogether a different question. Had the copies of bill books in whatever form they were been supplied to the detenu he would have certainly been able to make his representation effectively. If the bill books were blank on one piece of paper this could have been written and the supply of such piece of paper giving details about the bill books and containing the remark blank would be considered sufficient compliance. Since the very alleged illegal activities were in respect of bill books and the maintenance of stock register it has got to be held in the facts and circumstances of the case that bill books did from part of basic facts constituting the offence and the alleged prejudicial activities. Therefore it has to be included in the term grounds which occurs in Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and also in Sec. 8 of the Act. ( 9 ) SINCE the petitioner-detenu has not been supplied with the copies of the bill books which have been referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention the mandate of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution is not complied with. Thus petitioner-detenu has been deprived of his right to make effective and adequate representation against his detention. ( 9 ) SINCE the petitioner-detenu has not been supplied with the copies of the bill books which have been referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention the mandate of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution is not complied with. Thus petitioner-detenu has been deprived of his right to make effective and adequate representation against his detention. Hence the continuous detention of the petitioner detenu is illegal and void and hence his further detention is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. Further detention of the petitioner-detenu is held to be illegal and void. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute. .