JUDGMENT G.D. Kamat, J.- In this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of detention made against his brother Jaaquim Alomao alias Rakozinha Alomao under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by and in the name of the Governor of Goa. The Power has been exercised with a view to prevent the detenu from abetting the smuggling of gold. 2. The detention order bearing No. 14/8/91 H.O. (G) (1) dated 10th September 1991 was served on the detenu on or about 11th September, 1991 pari passu with the grounds of detention formulated by the Detaining Authority of even date. 3. In the grounds of detention it was mentioned that the detenu along with his brother Churchill Alomao and others had arranged to land contraband gold in South Goa and on receipt of the intelligence an officer of the Customs was keeping surveillance on the activities in the said area. On 15th May, 1991 it is stated that the detenu along with Ciabro Alomao, Alvamaz Alomao and others went to the construction site of the Varca Holiday Beach Resort around 8.00 P.M. in Maruti Gypsy, a bullet motorcycle and a Mahindra Jeep. All of them had a meeting at the site of the construction where after all of them dispersed. On the next morning around 7.30 a.m. the - detenu along with Ciabro Alomao and Churchill Alomao and two to three other persons again went to the construction site and at which time one Maruti Gypsy, and Mahindra Jeep, and white Contessa Car, two to three scooters and a bullet motorcycle was soon parked at the construction site. The Customs Officer received further intelligence at his residence regarding suspicious activities of the group and on around 11.30 a.m. the officer reached near the construction site of Varca Holiday Beach Resort on his motorcycle and saw one white Contessa Car parked at the dead end of the tarred road in the direction of the aforementioned Beach Resort. Down on the kutcha road, one blue Maroti car and one black Fiat Car were also parked. It was next mentioned that after some time the vehicles started moving towards Carmuna beach and parked at the dead end of the road. Down on the kutcha road, one blue Maroti car and one black Fiat Car were also parked. It was next mentioned that after some time the vehicles started moving towards Carmuna beach and parked at the dead end of the road. Two canoes fitted with outboard motor approached Carmona beach from the high seas and touched the shore around noon. There were 5 to 6 persons in each of the canoes. These persons from the canoes removed some box type items and started taking them towards the parked vehicles. The first box reached the Contessa Car, in which the brother of the detenu by name Alvarnaz Alamao. was sitting in the driver's seat. He got out and opened the dicky of the car so as to enable the box to be placed in the dicky of the said Contessa. Immediately thereafter a second box was brought by another two persons, which was also similarly placed in the dicky of the car. In all four boxes were placed in the dicky of the Contessa car. Thereafter Alvamaz Alamao went and opened the back portion of the blue Maruticar and a box was placed in the said car. The Contessa car driven by Alvarnaz Alamao started moving towards the village and on seeing the same moving, the officer, who was watching from far, rushed to the motorcycle and on the way he managed to pass on a message to his office calling for assistance. By the time the officer came to the road with his motorcycle, the Contessa Car had disappeared. The officer somehow managed to overtake the Contessa Car and put his motorcycle across with the result Alvamaz stopped his car for a moment and on recognizing the Customs officer, he tried to run his car over him and the motorcycle. The officer with a view to save him self, jumped off the motorcycle but, however, the motorcycle came beneath the car and got entangled with the result it was dragged for a metre or two. On seeing that the car had slowed down the officer seized that opportunity and gained entry into the car by opening the left hand door of the car and tried to prevent Alvarnaz from taking the car further. The result was that the car started moving in a zig-zag manner and finally went off the road and stopped near a stone fencing at Guncavadda, Varea. The result was that the car started moving in a zig-zag manner and finally went off the road and stopped near a stone fencing at Guncavadda, Varea. It was mentioned that Alvarnaz admitted to the offer that there was contraband gold in the car but, however, he was not prepared to leave the car and allow the officer to seize the gold. Alvamaz therefore tried to offer money and part of the contraband gold to the officer to set him free and save the name of the family and Churchill Alamao because die Contessa Car belonged to said Churchill. It is then claimed that the officer declined to accept this offer made to him and Alvarnaz started taking the car in reverse. It is then mentioned that Alvarnaz tried to attack the officer with a weapon and there was scuffle with the two. Same time thereafter the Customs officer came out of the car with his clothes stained with blood to identify himself to the crowd that had gathered holding out that he is the Customs Officer and saying that it was a case of smuggling. He went and opened the dicky of the car and verified that there was gold in the dicky. He discovered that the 4 boxes were battery type and he even removed one gold biscuit from one of the boxes and displayed it to the crowd and solicited the assistance of the members of the public gathered it affecting the seizure of the contraband gold. It was mentioned that no member of the crowd ventured to assist the Customs officer and after waiting for about 20 minutes and seeing that no help was coming the Customs officer locked the dicky, deflated the two tyres of the car and moved away from the scene, after assessing the situation that it was no longer safe; for him to remain at the scene. It was next mentioned that after that the detenu along with his brothers Ciabro Alamao and Churchill Alamao, Anthony John Rodrigues alias Reginald Rodrigues (detenu in companion petition Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1991), Anton Fernandes Gungrotta, Roy Anthony Xavier Miranda, Romao and others arrived on the scene. It was next mentioned that after that the detenu along with his brothers Ciabro Alamao and Churchill Alamao, Anthony John Rodrigues alias Reginald Rodrigues (detenu in companion petition Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1991), Anton Fernandes Gungrotta, Roy Anthony Xavier Miranda, Romao and others arrived on the scene. The detenu had a look at the injured brother Alvarnaz and without giving him any assistance he rushed towards the dicky and called others and thereafter along with Reginald Red Agues and others broke open the dicky of the car and removed the battery type containers and placed them on the scooters driven by Roy Miranda and Antonia Fernandes, who took them away towards Fatrade Road. After removal of the contraband the detenu attended to his injured brother Alvarnaz where after Churchill took the injured to a nearby doctor. 4. Various contentions have been raised in this petition, out of which only three contentions have been pressed at the time of the hearing of this petition. Contentions 1 and 2 are the grounds in (iv) and (v) of the petition. They read thus: (iv) The Petitioner says and submits that in Para 18 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority, in terms, has stated as under: "18. The State Government has also carefully considered all the materials placed before it including your statements, panchanamas, Hon'ble Court's orders, Medical reports, statements of various parties/persons by the Customs and the correspondence arising there from and other materials placed before it and enclosed herewith as per the index attached." The Petitioner says and submits that thereafter in Para 20 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has, in terms, drawn the following conclusions: "20. The State Government has 'perused' the documents relating to the searches of residential premises of SI Shri Ronnio Rodrigues, Roy Miranda, Minguel Francis Fernandes, Reginald Rodrigues, Bosco Rodrigues, J.J. Seixas conducted by the Customs wherein various 'incriminating' documents were seized and also that of office premises of M/s. Varca Holiday Beach Resort, wherein one FAX machine of foreign origin valued at Rs.30,000/- was seized aiong with documents"'. The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority in Para 18 of the grounds of detention having averred that it had inter alia carefully considered the 'Panchanamas, the detaining authority furnished to the detenu the copies of the said seizure 'panchanamas' 'Puri Passu' along with the grounds of detention. The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority in Para 18 of the grounds of detention having averred that it had inter alia carefully considered the 'Panchanamas, the detaining authority furnished to the detenu the copies of the said seizure 'panchanamas' 'Puri Passu' along with the grounds of detention. The Petitioner says and submits that similarly the detaining authority in Para 20 of the grounds of detention, in terms, having averred that it had 'perused' the documents relating to the searches of the diverse places listed in the said Para, wherefrom according to the detaining authority 'incriminating' documents were seized and from the office premises of M/s. Varea Holiday Beach Resort, wherefrom according to the detaining authority, thus having referred to and relied upon the said documents seized from the said places and the detaining authority in any case having them by reference in the grounds of detention and the detaining authority, thus, having allowed his mind to be influenced by them so much so that the detaining authority having branded the said documents recovered from the diverse places (other then the documents seized from the premises of M/s. Varea Holiday Beach Resort as 'incriminating' documents despite the fact that in none of the seizure panchanama the said seized documents are described as 'incriminating', as set out in the tabular chart, which is hereto annexed and marked Annexure 'C', in reality Annexure 'D'. It was incumbant upon the detaining authority as its bounded duty to have furnished to the detenu the said documents especially these in respect of which the detaining authority, in terms, had drawn the conclusion that they were 'incriminating', 'pari passu' along with the grounds of detention. The petitioner says and submits that not only the said documents were not furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention but also the same have not been furnished to the detenu even tin this date. The petitioner says and submits that the documents being an integral part of the grounds of detention and the documents form the part and parcel of the grounds of detention, the non-furnishing the said documents to the detenu along with the grounds of detention, in the eyes of law, amounts to non-furnishing the grounds of detention themselves; which in turn, resulted in non-communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu. The Petitioner says and submits that the detenu also, as a result was denied the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. The impugned order of detention is consequently violative of both the facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and as such it is per se mala-fide and ab-initia null and void. (v) The petitioner says and submits that if the said seized documents which are set out in Para 20 of the grounds of detention and which are purported to have been 'perused' by the detaining authority and which were, thus, carefully considered by the detaining authority; especially these which are branded by the detaining authority as 'incriminating' documents; were in fact not placed before the detaining authority, then in that case, the said conclusion drawn by the detaining authority to the effect that he had 'perused' them obviously displays non-application of mind and a casual and cavalier exercise of power by the detaining authority resulting in vitiating the impugned order of detention. The Petitioner further says and submits that in case the said seized documents were not placed before the detaining authority then it is manifest that the detaining authority has bodily adopted an verbatim copies and the said conclusion specially the conclusion to the effect that the said documents were 'incriminating' in nature, from the proposal or the draft grounds put up before him. This, in turn, demonstrates that the detaining authority had abdicated his statutory authority which required that the detaining authority should have himself scanned the material and formulated the grounds of detention himself. The detaining authority instead of doing the said exercise himself had left that exercise to, be done by the others, which course of action adopted by the detaining authority was impermissible in law. The Petitioner says and submits that as a result the impugned order, of detention is mala-fide and ab-initio null and void." 5. From the grounds formulated in support of the detention of order it is dear that in paragraph 18 thereof the Detaining Authority says that it has carefully considered all the materials placed before it including the statements of the detenu, panchanamas. Orders of the Court, Medical Reports, statements of various parties/persons recorded by the Customs and the correspondence arising there from and other materials placed before it and enclosed therewith as per the index attached. Orders of the Court, Medical Reports, statements of various parties/persons recorded by the Customs and the correspondence arising there from and other materials placed before it and enclosed therewith as per the index attached. Paragraph 19 says that the detenu along with Churchill Alamao, Ciabro Alamao, Anthony John," Fernandes alias Reginald Fernandes (co-detenus in other petitions) have denied having played any role in the smuggling operations. However from the material placed before the Stale Government, it is dear that all of them have played active part in the smuggling operations and that the detenu has denied his role with Ii view to save himself from due process of law. Paragraph 20 of the grounds makes it amply clear that the State Government has perused the documents relating to the searches of residential premises of S/Shri Ronnie Rodrigues, Roy Miranda. Minguel Francis Fernandes. Reginald Rodrigues, Basco Rodrigues and JJ. Seixas conducted by the Customs wherein various incriminating documents were seized and also that of office premises of M/s. Varca Holiday Beach Resort. The next reference is to the apprehension of one FAX machine of foreign origin. The whole thrust of the challenge in the petition now is that the Detaining Authority in paragraph 18 has specifically relied upon certain panchanamas and which are undoubtedly given as part of the grounds in annex tires to the grounds in support of the detention order but, however, in paragraph 20 of the grounds a separate reference has been made to the documents relating to the searches of the residential premises of several persons mentioned therein and these documents of searches in their turn refer to various incriminating documents which are not only seized from the houses of these persons mentioned therein but also from the office premises of Varca Holiday Beach Resort. Shri Jetmalani, appearing for the petitioner, now asserts that the so called incriminating documents which were seized as a result of searches of the residential premises of Ronnie Rodrigues, Roy Miranda, Mingual Francis Fernandes, Reginald Rodrigues, Basco Rodrigues and J. J. Seixas do not find place in the documents put up before the detaining authority and secondly these so called incriminating documents have not been furnished to the detenu with the result, in the first place, there is no application of mind by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction of whether or not to make the detention order and if these incriminating documents as called were placed before the detaining authority, perhaps the detaining authority would not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction for making the detention order. While highlighting the second facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, it is contended on behalf of the detenu that the documents which are relied upon and referred to in the grounds and which are otherwise vital and form basic material and which the detaining authority itself styled as incriminating documents having not been given to the detenu, the detention order is invalid on the ground that the detenu could not make any effective representation against his detention. In support of this submission Shri Jetmalani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance firstly on an unreported decision of a Bench of this Court in Smt. Neena John Peters and another v. The Union of India and others (Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 12 and 13 of 1990); secondly in an unreported decision of Smt. Piedads Angela Rodrigues v. The Union of India and others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 15 of 1991), delivered on 23rd September 1991; thirdly in an unreported judgment of S.C. Mohd. Towfeek Mohd. Mulaffar @M.T.M. Mulaffar v. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and another (Writ Petition No. (CRL) 602 of 1989, dated 23rd February 1990) and lastly a decision of Jaleel Khan v. Assistant Secretary, Home Deptt. (Spl.), Government of Maharashtra and another1. We will shortly deal with each and every judgment. Insofar as the unreported judgment in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 12 and 13 of 1990 is concerned, this was again a case of challenge to order made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (Spl.), Government of Maharashtra and another1. We will shortly deal with each and every judgment. Insofar as the unreported judgment in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 12 and 13 of 1990 is concerned, this was again a case of challenge to order made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Detaining Authority relied upon a police complaint lodged at Shahzepuri Police Station, Kolhapur. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners therein that no complaint ever formed part of the records nor the same was placed before the detaining authority. The Court struck down the detention order on the ground that the police complaint being a vital document, which was indeed relied upon by the detaining authority for clamping down the detenus, was, however, never placed. before the detaining authority, therefore, there was no application of mind and the order was vitiated. The decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 15 of 1991 is in fact the offshoot of the first decision and in our view no reference is necessary to this authority. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. (Crl.) 602 of 1989 is concerned the question before the Supreme Court was non-placing of the retracted statement of the detenu and in the context whether the detention order was vitiated. It appears that after the apprehension of the detenu therein on 17th September 1989 his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded and that was placed before the Detaining Authority. He had, however, retracted from that confession by his letter dated 16th October 1989 and that was not placed before the Detaining Authority. The Supreme Court observed that inasmuch as the Detaining Authority had placed reliance on the confessional statement, considering the same to be a voluntary one and since the detenu had retracted the earlier confession at the earliest possible opportunity and the same having not been placed before the Detaining Authority, it was held that the Detaining Authority had failed to apply its mind to that fact and, therefore, that was a case of clear non-application of mind to the vital aspect of the matter, which, if considered, may have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. Coming to the last authority, which covers the present controversy on all its fours as urged by Shri Jetmalani is the decision of Jaleel Khan v. Assistant Secretary Home Deptt. (Spl.) Government of Maharashtra and another. This was again a case of challenge of the detention order made under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The ground of detention concerned smuggling silver out of India. The consignment was supposed to contain electronic goods and when the consignment arrived at Hongkong by British Airways it was found to have contained 194 Kgs. of silver (248 bars) instead of electronic goods. The investigation disclosed that there was in fact no company which was shown to be the consigner. The premises of the travel agents were searched and panchanamas effected. Paragraph 5 of the grounds in that petition reads thus: "Further enquiries made revealed that the Airway Bill was given by M/s. B.V.C. Travel Agency to their sub-agents M/s. Airway Travels Cargo, I Parsiwada Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Bombay-99. Thereafter the premises of both M/s. B.V.C. Travel Agency as well as M/s. Airway Travels Cargo were searched on 4-11-1980 and certain Incriminating documents were recovered. The statement of Shri Shashi Amladi, an employee of M/s. B.V.C. Travel and Shri Pradeep Vipani were recorded. According to the statements dated 20-11-1980 of Shri Pradeep Vipani, Proprietor of M/s. Airway Travel Cargo, the Airway Bill of the consignment was prepared by him. Both these persons were arrested on 27th Nov. 1980 and released on bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay on 1-12-1980." Though copies of the panchanamas were given to the detenu, the so called incriminating documents recovered had not been given. The Court held that the very fact that in the grounds of detention the said documents were referred to or described as incriminating documents would by itself show that according to the Detaining Authority the documents were such as would incriminate the detenu. The Court further observed that, therefore, there was material to be considered before making the detention. The Court did not permit the Detaining Authority to urge that the Detaining Authority had not relied upon these so called incriminating documents. The Division Court accepted the challenge on behalf of the detenu and set aside the detention order. 6. The Court further observed that, therefore, there was material to be considered before making the detention. The Court did not permit the Detaining Authority to urge that the Detaining Authority had not relied upon these so called incriminating documents. The Division Court accepted the challenge on behalf of the detenu and set aside the detention order. 6. It must be mentioned that in paragraph 18 of the grounds a separate reference has been made to the panchanamas and in paragraph 20 it is mentioned that the State Government was perused the documents relating to the searches of residential premises of persons named therein, wherein various incriminating documents were seized and also that of office premises of M/s. Varca Holiday Beach Resort. Even when one considers that for the sake of argument the documents relating to searches of residential premises mentioned in paragraph 20 are the documents which are styled as panchanamas in paragraph 18 of the grounds, the question for consideration is whether the incriminating documents which are obviously not put before the Detaining Authority and which are obviously not supplied to the detenu are such that anyone of the facets mentioned above will vitiate the detention order. 7. It is indeed contended by Shri Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 2 and 3, that there is no complaint that copies of panchanamas have not been given to the detenu. He further asserts that the pahchanamas mentioned in paragraph 18 are the same documents which are styled as documents relating to searches in paragraph 20. He now says that the expression 'wherein' refers to the panchanamas or documents of searches and inasmuch as there is no complaint about non-furnishing of the panchanamas, nothing can be faulted with the detention order. He now says that what is relevant to be considered are the search documents and they are the documents of vital importance inasmuch as they constitute basic facts. Merely because the panchanamas show that some other documents are seized, these latter documents need not be given to the detenu as they have no bearing and at any rate, according to him, these documents are not at all important. 8. Mrs. Ranjana Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, has also raised contentions similar to the learned Public Prosecutor in support of the detention. 8. Mrs. Ranjana Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, has also raised contentions similar to the learned Public Prosecutor in support of the detention. In the first place, according to her, all the documents referred to by the Detaining Authority in the grounds are not required to be furnished to the detenu and what is required to be furnished to the detenu are only such documents which are relevant and vital and which when taken into consideration for reaching subjective satisfaction, one way or the oilier, affect that satisfaction. In the decision of Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay v. K.L. Varma and others2, it is mentioned that only relevant and vital documents taken into consideration for reaching subjective satisfaction are required to be furnished. Here the complaint was that some pages out of 1 to 44 of the lease sheets bunched together of bank pass books and referred to in the panchanama had not been furnished to the detenu, therefore, the detenu could not make an effective representation. It is in that context the Supreme Court held, that it is not necessary to furnish copies of all the documents which are not material and relevant for reaching the subjective satisfaction of me detaining authority merely because they were mentioned in the panchanama. In the background of the recovery of foreign currency as well as primary gold with foreign markings, the Court observed that non-furnishing of certain sheets of the bank pass books being otherwise not vital and material could not be vitiated the detention order. 9. She next relied upon the decision of L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral and another3. The Supreme Court observed that every failure to furnish copy of a document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act is not an infringement of Article 22(5), fatal to the order of detention. It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as are relied upon by the Detaining Authority. making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation that amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 22(5). Mrs. Dessai now strongly relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Nasir Khan v. L. Himingliana and others4. Mrs. making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation that amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 22(5). Mrs. Dessai now strongly relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Nasir Khan v. L. Himingliana and others4. Mrs. Dessai asserts that it is not only the right of the Court but also its duty as well to examine what are the basic facts and materials which actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. This authority in its turn also refers to the earlier cited authority of L.M.S. Ummu Saleema (supra). Every decision is an authority for its own facts. The matter for consideration before the Division Bench in Abdul Nasir Khan's case was that certain illegible documents were furnished to the detenu pari passu with the grounds of detention. The illegible documents related to certain medical reports of one Jagdish v. Gursahani who was admitted in the P.D. Hinduja Hospital some time prior to the incident. These documents as such were not relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention but these documents were filed by Jagdish in the Court when applying for bail on medical grounds. The sponsoring authority, it appears had placed them before the Detaining Authority but were not referred to in the grounds. On examination of facts the Court reached the conclusion that these documents were neither vital nor constitute basic material. Mrs. Dessai now contends that at no time the detenu had asked for documents to enable him to make an effective representation and it is not the case of the petitioner that any request made by the detenu was turned down by the Detaining Authority. In fact we have not been able to follow this argument at all. Mrs. Dessai now contends that at no time the detenu had asked for documents to enable him to make an effective representation and it is not the case of the petitioner that any request made by the detenu was turned down by the Detaining Authority. In fact we have not been able to follow this argument at all. It is indeed not disputed either by Shri Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor, or Smt. Dessai, learned counsel for the Union of India, that when any document or documents is/are by itself or themselves vital or constitute material facts, which would influence the mind of the Detaining Authority, one way or the other, and the question of whether or not to make a detention order, it is for the detenu to ask for such documents and on the contrary the mandate of Article 22(5) is that the detenu must be furnished with documents which are relied upon and taken into consideration for the purpose of making the detention, order. 10. In paragraph 20 of the grounds though we have made abundant reference earlier, we may point out at the cost of repetition, it mentions that the State Government has perused the documents relating to the searches of residential premises of persons named therein conducted by the Customs wherein various incriminating documents were seized as also that of office premises of M/s. Varca Holiday Beach Resort. The reference obviously is to the incriminating documents seized from residential premises and Beach Resort during the search. We really fail to understand as to how Shri Bhobe can be permitted to urge that the reference is only to panchanamas and not to the so called incriminating documents. The word' wherein' obviously refers to documents of searches by which the so called incriminating documents were seized. Even on the assumption that the word 'wherein' refers to the residential premises of the persons whose houses were searched, then also the reference is to incriminating documents seized. The panchanamas do not disclose that the branded documents are incriminating but the grounds say so. It was not possible for the Detaining Authority without knowing the contents thereof to determine whether or not they were material and would have influenced him one way or the other in making the order. These incriminating documents do not form part of the documents annexed to the grounds. The index annexed shows documents at serial Nos. It was not possible for the Detaining Authority without knowing the contents thereof to determine whether or not they were material and would have influenced him one way or the other in making the order. These incriminating documents do not form part of the documents annexed to the grounds. The index annexed shows documents at serial Nos. 1 to 95 and barring the panchanamas referred to in paragraph 18 of the grounds, the so called incriminating documents do not find their place. The word 'ground' was explained to mean material on which detention order was made and that was held by the Supreme Court as early as 1951 in the decision of The State of Bombay v. Alma Ram Shridhar Vaidya5. It was further liberalized to mean all the basic facts and materials which are taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention and on which the order of detention is based and this was so held in Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and others6. Communication of ground presupposes the formulation of ground and formulation of ground requires and ensures the application of mind of the Detaining Authority to the facts and materials before it. Counsel for the respondents indeed have not disputed the proposition that a piece of evidence which might have reasonably affected the decision whether or not to pass an order of detention, if excluded from consideration, then there would be failure of application of mind, which in turn vitiates the detention order. 11. Once the Detaining Authority itself has styled the documents seized during the searches of residential premises of S/Shri Ronnie Rodrigues, Roy Miranda, Mingual Francis Fernandes, Reginald Rodrigues, Basco Rodrigues and JJ. Saixas as incriminating documents and when these documents by themselves were not placed before the Detaining Authority, it is difficult to accept as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that these documents are not vital or do not constitute basic material. It is indeed true that copies of panchanamas have been furnished to the detenu and the panchanamas suggest that documents referred to as incriminating documents were seized, that tea, either on the reasonable belief that they are required for the inquiry and in the matter of investigation or on the ground that they are useful and relevant for the purpose of making the detention order. In a tabular form at annexure D to the petition a reference has been made to these panchanamas to show what documents were seized there from. Admittedly none of these branded as incriminating documents were placed before the Detaining Authority and yet the Detaining Authority while formulating the grounds has in terms said that these are incriminating documents. This expression clearly connotes that they are documents by which the detenu incriminates himself in the offence and in this context it is not possible to say that such documents arc not vital or do not constitute any basic material so as to held that subjective satisfaction is not impaired. If this being the position, then, it must be held that there was no application of mind by the Detaining Authority and the order of detention therefore in its turn is vitiated. Once we come to this position, the other challenge in the petition, namely, that the documents referred to as incriminating documents were not furnished also become good challenge and on that ground also the detention stands vitiated. 12. Though third ground was pressed by the learned counsel on behalf of the detenu. it is not required to be decided in view of the challenge being accepted on the grounds mentioned in the judgment. 13. In the result the petition succeeds. The impugned order of detention bearing No. 14-8-1991 - HD (G) (1) dated 10th September 1991 is quashed and set aside. The detenu to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. -Petition allowed 1. 1983 Cri. L.J. 1305. 2. (1989) 1 S.C.C. 250 . 3. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1191. 4. 1991 Crl. L.J. 507. 5. A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157. 6. A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550.