Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of Writ of Habeas calling for the records of the first respondent and quashing the order dated 9. 12. 1991 and set him at liberty. ( 2 ) THE impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein; in exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act. No. 7 of 1980), with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of Paddy and rice essential to the community. ( 3 ) THE facts which led to the passing of the impugned order can be briefly stated as follows: On 24. 11. 1991 at about 3. 45 hours, V. Joseph Athisayam, Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Lalgudi, along with the Taluk Supply Officer, Manachanellur and a team of Officials conducted night raid to check and arrest the clandestine movement of essential commodities at the check post at Vathelai, Lalgudi Taluk. At that time one Ambassador car bearing registration No. TSG 2741 driven by Arumugham son of Karuppusami of Paramasivapuram, Lelguid Town was stopped. When the driver was enquired, he deposed that he first came as a pilot to two lorries bearing registration No. TN 45/9309 and TN 28/7236 which were loaded with a total of 410 begs of paddy. He further deposted that the said paddy was loaded at Nagar village in Lalgudi Taluk, a notified area, by one Shabiullah of Mandurai village under instructions from Nallusami Udayar of Namakkal, the petitioner herein, for delivery at the laters place at Namakkal. The further case is that subsequently it was noticed that the two lorries mentioned by the Ambassador car driver. Reached the Civil Supplies check post and the team of officials signalled to stop them. The drivers of the lorries did not oblige. The officials chased the lorries. The drivers stopped the lorries after a considerable chase and fled away from the scene. The two lorries were taken possession and the contents were checked, and they were found to contain 209 and 201 bags of paddy respectively. The drivers of the lorries did not oblige. The officials chased the lorries. The drivers stopped the lorries after a considerable chase and fled away from the scene. The two lorries were taken possession and the contents were checked, and they were found to contain 209 and 201 bags of paddy respectively. There were no records of bills movement authorisation and no entries in the Goods Vehicle Registers for the movement of the paddy in the lorries. Based on the information given by the driver of the Ambassador car and also from the movement of the lorries and connected records, the authorities came to the conclusion that those paddy bags were moved illegally out of the notified area, in violation of Clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and Clause 3 (1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy(Restriction on movement) Order, 1982 issued under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) duly signed the lorries with paddy bags under cover of mahazar. Thereafter the driver of the Ambassador car was handed over to the Vathalai Police with a complaint and the seized paddy was deposited in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown at Manachanallur. After follow-up investigation, the impugned order was passed. ( 4 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on various grounds, he confined his argument to ground No. 7 of the affidavit wherein it is contended that the grounds of detention heavily relies upon the statement of Arumugham son of Karuppusamy the driver of the Ambassador car. It is only statement by which the detenue is sought to be connected with the occurrence. The non-furnishing of this essential document clearly vitiates the order, according to the learned counsel, the non-supply of the material document, namely the statement of Arumugham, to the detenu, violates the safeguards provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and on that ground alone, the order is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, in para 8. It is averred as follows: 8 As regards the averments in para 7 of the affidavit, I submit that the grounds of detention in detail explain the activities of the detenu warranting him detention under the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, in para 8. It is averred as follows: 8 As regards the averments in para 7 of the affidavit, I submit that the grounds of detention in detail explain the activities of the detenu warranting him detention under the Act. A copy of the First Information Report relating to Crime No. 93/ 91 at Vathalai Police Station has been furnished to the detenu. I submit that all the documents have been furnished to the detenu and that there is no violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution as alleged. The statement of the witnesses testify to the involvement of the detenu in the unlawful activities. The contention is therefore untenable. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the representation submitted the detenu, a copy of the statement of Arumugham and other documents were asked for and in spite of that, the said documents were not furnished so as to enable the petitioner to make effective representation to challenge the order. This he has taken as a ground in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. According to the averments stated in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit, the respondent is bound to satisfy this court that the documents sought for in the said representation were also communicated to the detenu well within the time and that the representation was also placed before the Advisory Board without delay and the failure to comply with any of the aspects will equally render the continued detention of the detenu illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the detaining authority, in para 11 it is stated as ( 6 ) AS regards the averments in para 11 of the affidavit, I submit that in the representation referred to supra, no documents and details were sought for. Hence, the question of furnishing the same does not arise. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Kumar drew our attention to the averments stated in the representation sent to the Government on 15. 4. 1982 wherein it has been clearly stated. It is requested that at least now the statement of the said Arumugham, the driver of the Ambassador car, which is said to have been recorded on 24. 11. R. Kumar drew our attention to the averments stated in the representation sent to the Government on 15. 4. 1982 wherein it has been clearly stated. It is requested that at least now the statement of the said Arumugham, the driver of the Ambassador car, which is said to have been recorded on 24. 11. 199 1 may be furnished to the said detenu. In the face of the above averment, the statement made in the counter-affidavit by the detaining authority that no document was asked for in the representation is nothing but false. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the face of the averments stated in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the representation of the detenu has not at all been properly considered by the detaining authority. We do not want to go into that question since the learned counsel mainly confined his argument that the failure to furnish the material document, namely, the statement of Arumugham, driver of the Ambassador car which was relied on exclusively for detaining the petitioner, would vitiate the order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact of non-furnishing of this material document to the detenu till this date. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to various decisions, namely. Abdul Aziz v. Delhi Administration (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1389); Kailash Pandey v. State of U. P. ; (1983 S. C. 317), Yumaan Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur (A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 300); Mehrunnissa v. State of Maharashtra (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1861); M. Ahumedkutty v. Union of India (1990 S. C. C. (Cr1) 258; Ibrahim Ahmed v. State of Gujarat (A. I. R. 1982 s. c. 1990); The ratio laid down in the above decisions is to the effect that when once the documents referred to and relied on for arriving at the subjective satisfaction and a copy of the same is not furnished to the detenu, even after it was asked for, certainly it would vitiate the order of detention as the safeguards provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution have not been complied with. We have no hesitation in holding that since the material and vital document, namely, the statement of Arumugham, has not been furnished to the detention in spite of asking for the same till this date, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In this connection, we wish to observe that in the counter affidavit it is stated that no document has been asked for. In the order dated 24. 4. 1992 of the rejection of the representation there is absolutely nothing to show that the request for furnishing copies of the material documents to the petitioner has been considered and a decision has been taken on this aspect. Hence, for all these reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed in view of the failure to follow the safeguards provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other cause. Petition allowed.