Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, for quashing the order of detention passed by the first respondent herein in RC. C3. D. O. No. 66192 dated 4/3/1992, and for setting him (petitioner) at liberty. ( 2 ) THE detenu came to the adverse notice as forest offender in view of the two cases referred to in the preamble to the grounds of detention and he was detained on the basis pf the ground case by the first respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14) of 1982, with a view of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 3 ) THE facts that led to the passing of the Order of Detention were set out in detail in the grounds of detention and were duly served on the detenu, and hence we do not propose to reiterate them once again in this Order, especially in view of the limited plea taken by the counsel for the petitioner during, the course of arguments. ( 4 ) MR. T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confined his arguments to ground Nos. 12 and 13 taken in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. It is contended in those grounds that on 3. 3. 1992 at about 3. 30 A. M. , the Vellore District Forest Officer, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Hosur and other forest officials came to the house of the petitioner at Vellore and forcibly took him to their office, and they beat and ill-treated him. The petitioner has further alleged that his signatures were obtained forcibly, and that his father sent telegrams on the. same day to the District Forest Officer, Vellore Conservator of Forests, Forest Range Officer, Vellore, the District Collector, Vellore, Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, stating that the petitioner was illegally taken away from his (petitioners) house by Forest Officials. The petitioner has further alleged that his signatures were obtained forcibly, and that his father sent telegrams on the. same day to the District Forest Officer, Vellore Conservator of Forests, Forest Range Officer, Vellore, the District Collector, Vellore, Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, stating that the petitioner was illegally taken away from his (petitioners) house by Forest Officials. It is further alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit that the detaining authority has failed to take into consideration the telegram sent by the petitioners father Ganapathy, before passing the order of detention. According to the petitioner, the sponsoring authority also has failed to place the copy of the telegram before the detaining authority for his consideration. It is the contention of the petitioner that the telegram is an important material which would have weighed with the mind of the detaining authority in one way or other while arriving at subjective satisfaction in passing the impugned Order. ( 5 ) IT is to be noted that though this writ petition was admitted on 30. 3. 1992, the respondents entered appearance on 22/4/1992 through the learned Public Prosecutor and took time for filing counter, inspite of number of adjournments, no counter was filed, and the averments raised in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, therefore, stand unrebutted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed along with the typed set a certified copy of the telegram which shows that the telegram was sent to the detaining authority as well as the sponsoring authority and other officials even on 3. 3,1992 at about 11. 25 A. M. , alleging that the detenu was taken from his house at about 3. 30 A. M. on the night of 2-3/3/1992 and that he apprehended danger to the life of his son, and prayed that protection should be given to his son. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the fact that even in the representation sent by the detenu, a reference has been made about the sending of telegram, and that the same was not placed before the Advisory Board. He would submit that the telegram is a vital document as, according to the grounds of detention, the detenu was arrested in connection with the groumr, case at 8. He would submit that the telegram is a vital document as, according to the grounds of detention, the detenu was arrested in connection with the groumr, case at 8. 00 P. M. on 3/3/1992, at Chinnakinaru Vazhi Saragam in Allen North beat of Arasampet Reserve Forest. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the telegram was sent much earlier to that, and this shows that the detenu was taken long prior to the time of arrest, and hence the telegram is a vital document. Learned counsel argued that if the telegram had been placed before the detaining authority, it would have weighed with the mind of the authority one way or the other, in arriving at subjective satisfaction and passing the order of detention. In this connection, learned counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of Uttar Pradesh; wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: It is equally unnecessary to decide whether, the telegram despatched by Mirazuddin was at 12. 30 mid-night on 18/2/1988 or as suggested by the Respondents at 12. 30 noon on 19/2/1988. It is extremely probable that it was sent not at 12. 30 mid-night as claimed by the petitioner, but only at 12. 30 noon on 19/2/1988 as suggested by Sri Yogeshwar Prasad. But it cannot be disputed that such a telegram was sent. This telegram asserts, for whatever it was worth, that petitioner was taken into custody at 8. 00 p. m. on 18. 2. 1988. The contention of Shri Garg is that the non-consideration of this telegram, which had a bearing on the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner in the alleged offence vitiates the detention for non-application of mind. The detaining authority in its affidavit says. Deponent is not in a position to say about the facts of the telegram. It might have been given in peshbandi. What weight the content and assertions in the telegram should carry is an altogether a different matter. It is not disputed that the telegram was Dot placed before and considered by the detaining authority. There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non-application of mind if a piece: (of evidence, which was relevant, though not binding, had not been considered at all. It is not disputed that the telegram was Dot placed before and considered by the detaining authority. There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non-application of mind if a piece: (of evidence, which was relevant, though not binding, had not been considered at all. If a piece of evidence which might reasonably have affected the decision whether or not to pass, an order of detention is excluded from consideration, there would be a failure of application of mind which, in turn, vitiates the detention. The detaining authority might very well have come to the same conclusion after considering this material, but in the facts of this case the omission to consider the material assumes materiality. The above decision was also followed by a Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. M. Notarajan, J.) was a party, in the decision in R. Kumaravel v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was held that the non-consideration of the telegram sent on behalf of the detenu by the Detaining Authority would vitiate the Order of Detention. The ratio laid down in the above two decisions will squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the failure to consider the telegram, which is a vital document, vitiates the impugned Order of Detention, on the ground that there was non-application of mind to vital document while arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned Order of detention is quashed, and the detenu, petitioner herein, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.