JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The Petitioner has been detained pursuant to an order of detention passed u/s 3 of the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed on 21-8-1988 and served on the Petitioner on 23-8-1988 I he order of detention has been annexed as Annexure-1. The grounds of detention were served on the Petitioner on 25-8-198 which have been annexed as annexure-2 The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 30-8-1988. The Petitioner made a representation to the State Government as well as to the Union Government on 18-9-1988, a copy where of has been annexed as Annexure-3 The State Government rejected the Petitioner's representation by order dated 24-9-1988 but there has been no communication from the Central Government as to what happened to the representation of the Petitioner addressed to the Central Government. The detention of the Petitioner was confirmed by order dated 14-10-1988, in conformity with the report of the Advisory Board dated 7-10-1988. The Petitioner thereafter has assailed the legality of his detention in this writ application. 2. Mr. Pasayat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the following contentions in assailing the order of detention: (i) The grounds of detention indicate that one of the grounds on which the detaining authority derived his satisfaction is that on 14-8-1988; though according to the stock register, the detent had the requisite stock but yet he refused to release the stock in favour of the retailers and those retailers have made written complaints and from this it transpires that the detent has sold the controlled commodities in black market and has misappropriated the sale proceeds. Copies of the written complaints of the retailers were appended to the grounds. The written complaint of one Satyaban Sahu is dated 22-8-1988 which was not in existence on the date of detention on 21-8-1988, The detaining authority s satisfaction, therefore, was based upon a non-existent ground which vitiates the order of detention. (ii) Though the detent asked far the extract of the stack register which was seized on 14-8-1988 in order to enable him to make an effective representation, yet the same was not supplied and such non-supply of the document vitiates the order of detention. (ii) Though the detent asked far the extract of the stack register which was seized on 14-8-1988 in order to enable him to make an effective representation, yet the same was not supplied and such non-supply of the document vitiates the order of detention. (iii) Petitioner's, representation to the Central Government has not been disposed of and the Petitioner has not received any communication thereto though he had made the representation as early as an 16-9-1988 and such inaction on the part of the Central Government makes the continued detention of the Petitioner invalid. We shall now examine the correctness of each of the submissions made in seriatim. 3. Coming to the first ground of attack, we find that the order of detention is dated 21st of August. 1988, and the grounds that were served on the detent dearly reveal that one of the grounds is refusal of the detent to release stocks in favour of the retailers though according to the stack register, he had the requisite Slacks an 14-8-1988 The refusal by the detenu to the retailers is supported by the written complaints of retailers and one such written complaint is of one Satyaban Sahu Admittedly, the written complaint of Satyaban Sahu addressed to the Supply Inspector, Nimapara is dated 22-8-1988. Obviously, therefore, the said complaint was not in existence before the detaining authority, when the order of detention was passed on 21-8-1988. It is too well settled that if an order of detention is based on a nonexistent ground the order must be held to have been vitiated. The learned Additional Government Advocate repels the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this score on the ground that the Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and though the statement of Satyaban Sahu is dated 22nd August, 1988, but the fact that he had complained regarding non-receipt of the essential commodity in question was there in the report of the Supply Inspector and the detaining authority was satisfied on the basis of that. We fail to appreciate the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate. Of Course, the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, but such satisfaction cannot be so unguided or so blanket as to be immune from judicial scrutiny even if the same is arbitrary at based a non-existent material. In the case of Khudiram Das Vs. We fail to appreciate the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate. Of Course, the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective, but such satisfaction cannot be so unguided or so blanket as to be immune from judicial scrutiny even if the same is arbitrary at based a non-existent material. In the case of Khudiram Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, the Supreme Court observed: ...The bask postulate on which the Courts have proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority; if it is not, the condition precedent to the exercise' of the power would not be fulfilled and the exercise of the power would be bad.... This has been approved in a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Murari Aggarwala Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In the premises, as aforesaid, the order of detention being based on a non-existent ground, the same must be held to be vitiated. The first contention of Mr. Pasayat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, must, therefore, be sustained. 4. So far as the second submission of Mr. Pasayat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is concerned, we also find sufficient force in the same. That the detenu had sufficient stock on 14-8-1988 and yet he refused to release the stock in favour of the retailers is one of the grounds on which the detaining authority derived his satisfaction that the detenu had been selling those commodities in black market and was misappropriating the sale proceeds thereof, In the context, as aforesaid the detenu's prayer to give him the extract of the stock register dated 14 8-1988 cannot be lightly brushed aside The detaining authority has the constitutional responsibility to supply all the basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds to the detenu, particularly when the detenu himself has asked for the document in question In the case of Ganga Ramchand Bharvani Vs. Under-Secretary to The Government of Maharashtra and Others, it was observed by their lordships: ...In the context, 'grounds' does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of Section 3, nor is its connotation restricted to a bare statement of conclusion of fact. Nothing less than all the basis facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu.... In the case of Ramchandra A. Kamat Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court observed: When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the detenu makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously. The detaining authority in preparing the grounds would have referred to the statements and documents relied on in the grounds of detention and would be ordinarily available with him. When copies of such documents are asked for by the detenu the detaining authority should be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition will depend on the facts of each case. In that case, on account of undue delay in furnishing the documents, the Supreme Court held that the right to make an effective representation was denied and detention was held not to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In the present case, the request of the detenu to supply the extract of the register dated 14.8-1988 not having been acceded to, the detenu must be held to have been denied of making an effective representation and consequently, the continued detention becomes vitiated and on this ground also the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 5. So far as the third submission of Mr. Pasayat is concerned it has been asserted in the writ petition that the detenu made a representation to the Central Government on 16-9-1988 and even till the tiling of the writ application, no communication had been received from the Central Government as to that happened to the detenu's representation. 5. So far as the third submission of Mr. Pasayat is concerned it has been asserted in the writ petition that the detenu made a representation to the Central Government on 16-9-1988 and even till the tiling of the writ application, no communication had been received from the Central Government as to that happened to the detenu's representation. Though the detenu made a positive assertion in the writ petition that his representation to the Central Government has not been attended to expeditiously, yet the Central Government has not filed any counter affidavit though represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government. In the absence of any counter affidavit from the Central Government, the assertions made in the writ petition must be accepted since those assertions have not been controverted. Non-disposal of the detenu's representation by the Central Government violates the constitutional safeguard enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the continued detention of the detenu is rendered void on that score. On this ground also the order of detention is liable to be struck down. 6. In the premises, as aforesaid, we would quash the order of detention and direct that the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 7. I agree.