J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has challenged the detention order passed against him on 21-9-1989, by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti- social Activities Act, 1985 ("the Act" for short hereinafter ). The detaining authority passed the detention order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of sachin Police Station in Surat City. ( 2 ) THE detaining authority alleged that there were 12 cases filed against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act during the period from 1986 to 1989 out of which 10 cases were pending in the Court and one case was pending for Police investigation and in one case the petitioner was convicted. ( 3 ) IT was alleged that the petitioner was dealing in illegal liquor and he was engaged in selling and transporting country liquor. It was further alleged that he was harassing persons who refused to help him and he was taking law into his hand and he was also beating the persons. ( 4 ) FOUR witnesses were also examined. The First Information Reports were also considered. On the basis of the said material the detaining authority reached the satisfaction that the petitioner is a bootlegger and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence the detention order. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. S. R. Patel appeared for the petitioner while learned additional P. P. Mr. K. H. Baxi appeared for the respondents. ( 6 ) AT the very outset in the course of submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention. Relying on the same the contended that the detaining authoritys subjective satisfaction was founded on the evidence mentioned in para 1 of the grounds of detention. He also pointed out that in para 1 of the grounds of detention the evidence consisted of 12 cases filed against the petitioner during the period from 1986 to 1989. The details whereof are enumerated in annexures to the grounds of detention. In this, it is also pointed out that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the aforesaid pending cases in the Court. The details whereof are enumerated in annexures to the grounds of detention. In this, it is also pointed out that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the aforesaid pending cases in the Court. The bail applications and bail orders were neither considered nor supplied to the detaining authority. This aspect is not in controversy. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the material consisted of bail applications in the aforesaid cases pending in the Court against the petitioner and the orders passed by the Court were not considered by the detaining authority. It is also apparent that the sponsoring authority has also not supplied such material to the detaining authority. ( 7 ) RELYING on the aforesaid admitted consisting fact, it is contended by the learned Counsel Mr. Patel that the material consisting of bail applications and bail orders undoubtedly constituted vital and important material and non-consideration thereof would affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Therefore, it is contended that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (2) SCC 1 . As against that learned additional P. P. Mr. Baxi has vehemently, contended that in the present case the non-consideration of bail applications and orders would not constitute vital material and, therefore, there will be no effect on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. To substantiate his contention he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haridas amarchand Shah v. K. L. Verma, reported in 1989 (1) SCC 250 . ( 8 ) WE have given our anxious thought and have examined the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court. After having examined the said two decisions we are of the opinion that the decision of Ahamedkuttys case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. Prima facie, the contention of the Additional p. P. Mr. Baxi would appear to be subtle but not sustainable when he argued that the Supreme Court has not considered the non-consideration of bail application as vital. Prima facie, the contention of the Additional p. P. Mr. Baxi would appear to be subtle but not sustainable when he argued that the Supreme Court has not considered the non-consideration of bail application as vital. In this connection, it may be mentioned that in the case of Haridas Amarchand Shah the question before the Supreme Court was of variation in the bail conditions and not the main bail application and the order thereunder. What was not considered vital, was the variation in the bail conditions, whereas, in the case of Ahamedkutty (supra) it is specifically held that the bail application and the bail order were vital material for consideration. We would like to reproduce the material relevant portion from para 27 of the said settled decision which reads as under :"considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenus right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case". Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the non-consideration of the bail applications and orders would amount to non-application of mind which in turn would affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that in the present case non-consideration of the aforesaid vital material has seriously affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention order passed by the detaining authority in the present case is vitiated and, therefore, it is void. ( 9 ) IT is true that statements of four witnesses were recorded. However, the satisfaction of the detaining authority was mainly based on the consideration of the FIRs. Therefore, the detention order passed by the detaining authority in the present case is vitiated and, therefore, it is void. ( 9 ) IT is true that statements of four witnesses were recorded. However, the satisfaction of the detaining authority was mainly based on the consideration of the FIRs. In the light of the aforesaid discussion the material consisted of FIRs would be excluded. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner was a bootlegger would be vitiated. No other material is indicated or pointed out which would justify the detention order. Therefore, the detention order questioned before us is required to be quashed. ( 10 ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of detention is, hereby, set aside. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if no longer required in connection with any other case. Rule made absolute. .