K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE pivotal questions raised in this Habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for our consideration are Whether mere non-consideration of the bail application bail orders by the Detaining Authority impairs and vititates its subjective satisfaction as much as that the same renders the detention order ab initio void and illegal ? and in case if the same is taken into consideration Whether mere non-supply of the said material to the detenu violates his invariable constitutional right of making effective representation rendering the detention order unconstitutional entitling him to be set at liberty forthwith ? ( 2 ) TO state few relevant facts briefly so far as they are necessary for deciding the points raised in this petition it has been alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1986 (for short PASA) and that by the alleged anti-social activities falling within the perview of Chapters XVI and XVII of the I. P. Code had disturbed the public order in Junagadh area. It has also been further alleged that two offences as stated hereunder have been registered against the petitioner: @@@ -Sr. C. R. No. and Offence Date of Date of No. the name under release Decision of Police Sections on bail -Date -1 -42 302 317 17 Not -Bagbadar 147 148 proved. Police Stn. 149 395 -Dt 11 IPC. . . and 135 B. P. Act 2 -Kalyanpur 25 (1)Arms Released Pending (Jamnagar Act and on bail trial. District) 135 (1) but date -No. 4/88 B. P. Act. is not -Dt. 16-1-77 known. - over and above the aforesaid two offences 19 resepectable citizens appears to have given their statements before the Police complaining about petitioners dangerous activities disturbing public order in the area with a request to keep their names secret as they were apprehensive of danger to their lives and properties from the petitioner. As stated in the grounds of detention these statements were duly certified to have been verified by the DSP Porbandar. Further out of the said 19 witnesses 13 witnesses were also personally examined and inquired from by the Dist. Magistrate (for short-Detaining Authority) himself who was satisfied for withhelding the names and addresses of the said witnesses in the public interest. Further out of the said 19 witnesses 13 witnesses were also personally examined and inquired from by the Dist. Magistrate (for short-Detaining Authority) himself who was satisfied for withhelding the names and addresses of the said witnesses in the public interest. The Detaining Authority ultimately on the basis of the above material (as set out in details in the grounds of detention and annexures thereto) placed before him was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person and had disturbed public order on number of occasions in Junagadh area and therefore with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said area it was necessary to detain him. Accordingly in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec (1) of Section 3 of the PASA the Detaining Authority on 10-8-1990 clamped down the detention order on the petitioner putting him under detention. This detention order thereafter came to be approved and confirmed by the State Govt. in due compliance with rest of the provisions of the PASA. It is under these circumstances that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the orders of Detention before us. ( 3 ) MISS Kachhavah the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner though has raised several contentions in the petition she has mainly chosen to attack the order of detention by placing in fore-front only two of them as raised in paras 12 and 13 of the petition which are to the effect that (I) while passing the detention order as the Detaining Authority has not considered the vittal material pertaining to the bail applications and bail orders passed thereunder the genuineness of its subjective satisfaction to the said extent stood impaired and vitiated and (ii) nonsupply of the aforesaid vital material to the detenu has seriously prejudiced detenus right to make effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Elaborating the above two points it was vehemently argued by Miss Kachhavah that though as alleged in the grounds of detention the petitioner who was involved in serious offences under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act Section 35 (1) of the Bombay Police Act and Section 5 of the TADA regarding which C. R. No. 4 of 1988 came to be registered at Kalyanpur Police Station was released on bail by the competent Court yet neither the copy of the said bail application nor any bail order thereunder has been placed before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority. Miss Kachhavah further submitted that in the said application it has been specifically submitted that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated. She further submitted that the bail application and bail orders in question were vital documents having a bearing on passing of the detention order and therefore the same ought to have been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority alongwith other materials to enable it to consider properly whether the proposed order of detention was required to be passed against the petitioner or not. According to Miss Kachhavah had the said material been placed before the Detaining Authority it could as well might have tilted the subjective satisfaction in favour of the petitioner. Miss Kachhavah submitted that such a vital and important material having a bearing on detention order to utter prejudice of the petitioner has been unfortunately kept out of the consideration of the Detaining Authority and therefore to the said extent the genuineness of its subjective satisfaction stands impaired and vitiated. This infirmity according to Miss Kachhavah was fatal to the detention order rendering it liable to be quashed and set aside. Miss Kachhavah further submitted that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the said bail application and order passed thereunder as a result of which he could not make effective representation before the appropriate authorities which in turn violated his valuable fundamental right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the deten tion order unconstitutional illegal and void. In support of her above contention Miss Kachhavah has strongly relied upon the decision in the case of M. Ahamed Kutty v. Union of India reported in (1990) 2 SCC P. 1 wherein at Para 19 it has been held as under:19 The next submission is that of nonsupply of the bail application and the bail order. This Court as was observed in Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1980 -4 SCC 470) has forged certain procedural safeguards for citizens under preventive detention. The constitutional imperatives in Article 22 (5) are twofold : (1) The detaining authority must as soon as may be i. e. as soon as practicable after the detention communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention. The right is to make an effective representation and when some documents are referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention without copies of such documents the grounds of detention would not be complete. The detenu has therefore the right to be furnished with the ground of detention along with the documents so referred to or relied on. If there is failure or even delay in furnishing those documents it would amount to denial of the right to make an effective representation. This has been sealed by a long line of decisions: Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India (1980-2 SCC 270); Frances Coralic Mullin v. W. C. Khambra (1980 -2 SCC 275); Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980 -4 SCC 531); Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India ( 1980 4 SCC 525 ); Tushar Thakkar v. Union of India (1980-4 SCC 499); Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981-2 SCC 427); Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundalia v. Union of India ( 1981 2 SCC 436 ) and Ana Carolina DSouza v. Union of India [1981 Supp SCC 53 (1)]. ( 4 ) AGAINST the above Mr. S. D. Patel the learned Addl. ( 4 ) AGAINST the above Mr. S. D. Patel the learned Addl. P. P. while trying to support the impugned order of detention has invited our attention to para 11 of the affidavit in reply filed by the Detaining Authority wherein it has been stated as under: with reference to paras 12 and 13 of the petition I deny one and all the allegations made therein. I say that the question of bail application is not relevant material for coming to the subjective satisfaction. Now taking into consideration the above reply of the Detaining Authority one thing that remains undisputed is the fact that it has not taken into consideration the bail application and bail orders while passing the detention order against the petitioner. What has been merely asserted by the Detaining Authority is fact that the question of bail application and bail orders were not relevant for coming to the subjective satisfaction of course without describing as to how they were not so relevant. Further on going through the grounds of detention and the relevant material annexed in support of the same as we do not find even a whisper about any such bail application or the bail orders as having been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. Under the circumstances in light of the decision reported in the case of M. Ahamed Kutty (supra) the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was unable to carry the contest any further. The result is the submissions made by Miss Kachhavah regarding the non-consideration of the vital materials by the Detaining Authority vitiating subjective satisfaction rendering the impugned order of detention unconstitutional illegal and void has to be accepted. The question of not giving the copies of the said bail application or bail order etc. to the petitioner does not arise as neither the same came to be forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authrotiy nor the Detaining Authority in any other way has taken into consideration the same. Except the submissions discussed above no other and further submissions have been made before us by any of the learned Advocates. In this view of the matter this petition deserves to be allowed as squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of M. Ahamed Kutty (supra ). ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. Except the submissions discussed above no other and further submissions have been made before us by any of the learned Advocates. In this view of the matter this petition deserves to be allowed as squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of M. Ahamed Kutty (supra ). ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence in the Jail is required in connection with any other case. Rule made absolute. .