JUDGMENT (ORAL) Kurdukar, J. - The 2nd Respondent - the Detaining Authority vide his order dated January 31, 1992, detained one Sudhakar Sanjeev Hegde, under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act'), with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic of psychotropic substances. It is this order which is sought to be challenged by Smt. Reshma Sudhakar Hegde, wife of the detenu in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In view of the formidable contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as regards subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in issuing detention order, it is not necessary to set out in detail, the grounds of detention. Suffice it to state that Customs Officers on the basis of the secret information received raided the premises on 19.9.1991 and recovered some documents. During investigation, and interrogation of Amjad Hussain Khan, it was discovered that he was packing grams and Mandrax tablets in the gunny bags and drums. There were in all 54 gunny bags and 8 drums having markings 'Sudarshan Inner Price, GIDE (Vapi), Gujarat', were seized. These Mandrax tables were weighing about 1735.59 Kgs. valued at Rs. 1,73,55,400/- and they were seized, under a bonafide belief that they were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The present detenu was involved in this incident as an accused along with several others including on Khalid Hussein Mohammed Hussen Ghaswala and Premnath Chandya Shetty @ Mohammed Asif Shaikh. 3. It may be stated that Premnath Shetty @ Asif Shaikh was also detained pursuant to the detention order dated 31st January 1992 issued under section 3(1) of the Act. Smt. Ayesh Shaikh wife of detenu filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992 in the High Court Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order passed against her husband. Similarly, one Smt. Ruksana Khalid Hussain Ghaswala, wife of Khalid Hussein Mohammed Hussein Ghaswala, who was also detained pursuant to the order dated 31st January 1992 under section 3(1) of the Act, had filed writ petition in the High Court Bench at Nagpur being Criminal Writ Petition No. 38 of 1992. Both these Criminal Writ Petitions were allowed by the respective Benches and reference to the said judgments will be made at the appropriate place. 4. Both these Criminal Writ Petitions were allowed by the respective Benches and reference to the said judgments will be made at the appropriate place. 4. Mr. Karmali, learned Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition relying upon the affidavit of the Detaining Authority urged that the Detaining Authority is purported to have considered bulky record of about 600 pages on 31st January 1992, formulated the grounds and issued contemporaneously order of detention on the same day. This exercise, on the part of the Detaining Authority on the said date and day was physically impossible. He urged that the Detaining Authority could not have physically considered and or perused all these documents in such a short of period and could not have formulated the grounds of detention on 31st January 1992 and more particularly when on this day, two more detention orders on identical material and grounds were issued. This contention is taken up by the petitioner in para 4(iv) of the petition. The Detaining Authority in paras 5 and 8 of his affidavit - in-reply dated 1.7.1992 offered explanation to the aforesaid contention. Relevant recitals in para 5 read as under: "The Sponsoring Authority thereafter resubmitted the proposal vide their letter dated 18.12.1991. Along with this proposal, documents from Serial Nos. 69 to 70 were submitted. This proposal was submitted to me on 30.12.1991. I instructed my office to make a back reference to the Sponsoring Authority for additional information. Accordingly, by letter dated 22ndJanuary 1992, the Assistant Collector of Customs was requested to send additional information. On 23.1 .1992, the Sponsoring Authority again submitted the proposal. Along with the proposal documents mentioned at Serial Nos. 71 to 72 were sent. They were received on 23.1.1992. Documents from Serial Nos. 73 to 87 sent vide letter dated 7.1.1992. Documents from serial Nos. 88 to 123 were sent by the Sponsoring Authority vide their letter dated 27.1.1992. They were received in the Home Department on same day. Vide their letter dated 31.1.1992 the Sponsoring Authority submitted the documents from serial Nos. 124 to 129. They were received in the Home Department on the same day. On 31.1.1992, the revised proposal along with all the documents was submitted tome. On the very day, I carefully scrutinised all the documents along with the proposal. Vide their letter dated 31.1.1992 the Sponsoring Authority submitted the documents from serial Nos. 124 to 129. They were received in the Home Department on the same day. On 31.1.1992, the revised proposal along with all the documents was submitted tome. On the very day, I carefully scrutinised all the documents along with the proposal. After careful scrutiny of the material, I was satisfied that the, Sponsoring Authority had forwarded sufficient material to indicate the involvement of the detenu in the prejudicial activity. Upon scrutiny of the material, I was subjectively satisfied that this was a fit case for detaining the detenu. I, therefore, formulated the grounds of detention on 31.1.1992 and contemporaneously issued the order of detention……" Para 8 of the affidavit reads as under: "Contents of para 4(iv) have also been adequately answered by me in the preceding paragraph. I say that proposals of co-detenues were also sponsored on the same day. I say that contents of the paragraph are contrary to what the petitioner has alleged in para 4(i) of the petition. I say that while in para 4(i) of the petition, he says that there is delay in issuing the order of detention in the paragraph under reply, the petitioner has posed a challenged as to how I could have formulated the grounds of detention in such a short span of time. This contrary stand itself indicates the hollow nature of the petitioner's al1egations. In any event, I submit that from what has been stated in preceding paragraph, it is clear that the voluminous record was thoroughly scanned by me. Merely because an order of detention is issued within a short span of time, it cannot be concluded that there is any non-application of mind unless there are glaring instances of the said al1eged non-application of mind. I deny that I have careful1y scrutinised the material along with the proposal. I personally drafted the grounds of detention when I was satisfied about the need to detain the detenu. I deny that there is any non-application of mind or casual or cava liar exercise of power by me. I say that the petitioner cannot call upon me to disclose as to how many orders of detention I issued on 30.1.1992 and 31.1.1992." These are the pleadings in the writ petition before us. I deny that there is any non-application of mind or casual or cava liar exercise of power by me. I say that the petitioner cannot call upon me to disclose as to how many orders of detention I issued on 30.1.1992 and 31.1.1992." These are the pleadings in the writ petition before us. Identical challenge was found in Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992 filed at Aurangabad Bench. This Criminal Writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the said Court vide its judgment dated 29th April 1992. Mr. Karmali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of hearing produced before us a xerox copy of the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench. Copy taken on record and marked X for identification. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, contentions raised on behalf of the detenu were reproduced. Mr. Karmali also furnished to us a copy of the affidavit of the Detaining Authority which was filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992 at Aurangabad Bench. On comparision of both the affidavits it is not and cannot be disputed that the recitals therein relating to the contentions raised before us are identical. 5. The learned Judges of the Division Bench after hearing Counsel for the parties in para 5 has recorded the finding as under: “At the outset, we must emphasise that if one takes into account the various dates and the number of the documents which were received by the detaining authority, it is difficult to accept a solitary statement made by the detaining authority in the counter affidavit that he had carefully scrutinised all the document along with the proposal on January 31, 1992. Unless it is a fact that the proposal was considered stage-wise and also documents were read in peacemeal, it does not seem to us that it would have been physically possible for the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction on January 31,1992." (emphasis supplied). The Division Bench in the next para has observed as under: "In our considered opinion, therefore, these facts by themselves lead to legitimate inference that the Detaining Authority could not have himself processed and scanned the voluminous and bulky record of documents and considered the material and at the same time, he could not have himself formulated the grounds of detention in such a short span of time. It is thus manifest that the Detaining Authority has failed to apply its mind to all material placed before him in arriving at the subjective satisfaction." Mr. Karmali heavily relied upon these observations in the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench (Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992) and urged that in view of the identical contentions and the identical affidavits in reply filed by the Detaining Authority in these proceedings it must be held that the impugned order of detention suffers from vice of non-application of mind to the documents produced before him and thus subjective satisfaction stands vitiated. 6. Mr. Karmali then urged that the Detaining Authority must show to the Court that in fact he has applied his mind to the material produced before him and mere ipse dixit in the return would not be sufficient to come to a conclusion that the Detaining Authority has perused bulky record of nearly 600 pages in one day and formulated grounds of detention and passed not only the impugned order of detention, but also two order detention orders. Mr. Karmali also drew our attention to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Anwar Abdulla v. Union of India1. Paragraph 14 contains the ratio of the judgment. Relying upon this decision Mr. Karmali urged that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is impossible to believe that the Detaining Authority could have applied its mind to the record of about 600 pages in a day, formulated grounds of detention and contemporaneously pass order of detention along with two other detention orders. 7. As indicated earlier, decision of the Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992 proceeds on the footing that it was physically impossible for the Detaining Authority to apply its mind to voluminous record of nearly 600 pages, formulate the grounds of detention and pass detention order on the same day i.e. 31st January 1992 the learned Division Bench at Aurangabad was not prepared to accept the affidavit of the Detaining Authority wherein it was asserted that it had applied its mind to the entire material on 31st January 1992, formulated the grounds of detention and issued detention order on the same day. As indicated earlier, affidavit filed before us almost identical and, obviously, therefore, there could not have been any material change in the present affidavit. As indicated earlier, affidavit filed before us almost identical and, obviously, therefore, there could not have been any material change in the present affidavit. We however, deem it necessary to express our opinion as regards some of the observations made by the Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992. In our opinion, from the affidavit produced before us, a view could have been taken that process of applying mind to the documents produced by the Sponsoring Authority started from 18th December 1991 and that process continued till 31st January 1992, since Detaining Authority has stated in its affidavit that it went on asking the Sponsoring Authority to furnish additional information. This additional information was furnished by the Sponsoring Authority from time to time and the last instalment of such information by way of small number of documents was received by him, on 31st January 1992. Reading the affidavit of the Detaining Authority a legitimate view could have been taken by us that process of application of mind started from 18th December 1991 and ended on 31st January 1992 when grounds of detention were formulated and contemporaneously impugned order came to be issued. Since the Bench of this Court at Aurangabad has taken a particular view of the contents of the affidavit of the Detaining Authority, judicial discipline requires to follow the same unless there are some compelling reasons to take a different view. In our opinion, there are no compelling reasons to take a different view. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we prefer to follow the view taken by the Aurangabad Bench. 8. Mr. Page, learned Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that if this Division Bench is satisfied that the view taken by the Aurangabad Bench is not the correct view in law, then, this Court can distinguish the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench and give its own reasons or may refer the issue to the larger Bench. As far as second part of the argument relating to reference to a larger Bench is concerned, we do not think it is necessary to do so in this case. In support of his first part of argument, Mr. Page drew our attention to an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1991 dated 4.3. 19922 rendered by Sujmata Manohar and B.N. Deshmukh, JJ. We have gone through this judgment. In support of his first part of argument, Mr. Page drew our attention to an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1991 dated 4.3. 19922 rendered by Sujmata Manohar and B.N. Deshmukh, JJ. We have gone through this judgment. It appears that the Division Bench has distinguished the judgment rendered by another Division Bench in co-detenu's matter on some factual aspects. This judgment, therefore, is clearly distinguishable. 9. Mr. Page, also drew our attention to some more unreported decisions of this Court to contend that it is permissible for this Court to take a different view. In our opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to take a different view in the present case. However, it may be stated that some of the decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard may have relevance and we may only refer to citations: (i) A.K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India3 and (ii) Tarapada De v. State of W B.4. In an appropriate case, this Court if found necessary, may consider the decision of Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 55/92. 10. In the result, petition succeeds. Impugned detention order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. Rule made absolute. Petition allowed. 1. I.L.R. 1992 Kar. 353. 2. Cri. Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1991 decided on 4.3.1992 by Bom. H.C. 3. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 816. 4. A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 174.