Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) (ORDER of the Bench delivered by )This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the Order of detention dated 10-1-1992 and for setting him at liberty. ( 2 ) THE detenue came to the adverse notice as Forest Offender in view of the single case referred to in the preamble and he was detained on the basis of the ground case. ( 3 ) THE impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate and Collector of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Slum grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter called the Act, with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 4 ) THE facts which led to the passing of the order of detention were set out elaborately in the grounds of detention, which was duly served on the detenu and in view of the limited plea taken by the petitioner in the writ petition, we do not propose to reiterate the same once again in this order. ( 5 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian, challenged the impugned order of detention on various grounds, confined his arguments to grounds (d) and (e ). Wherein it is stated as follows:-" (d) The 2nd respondent has no materials to show how ecological system has been reduced because of the cutting of sandalwood trees, as mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention. On this ground of non-application of mind, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and hence the same is liable to be set aside. (e) The 2nd respondent also does not have any statement of tribals who have stated that they were instigated by him to commit the offence mentioned in para 4 of the grounds of detention. Therefore, the consideration of extraneous material without any documents vitiates the detention order and hence on this ground as well as the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the consideration of extraneous material without any documents vitiates the detention order and hence on this ground as well as the same is liable to be set aside. " ( 6 ) AT the outset we wish to point out that though this writ petition was admitted on 23-3-1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 15-6-1992 and took time for filing counter, they did not file the counter even after several adjournments, as such the averments submitted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stand unrebutted. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. Wherein it is stated that only on the basis of the above allegations the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction and passed the impugned order and that those averments are not supported by any materials. In any event no papers have been furnished to the detenu in respect of those materials. When we asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to whether there are any materials to substantiate the said averments, he fairly submitted that there are extraneous materials but they are not supported by any documents or other evidence. In this connection the learned Counsel drew attention to a divisional Bench decision of this Court in Subhash Babu vs. State by Secretary for home etc. , 1991 L. W. (Crl.) 527 to which one of us K. M. Natarajan, J. was a party, wherein it is held as follows:-"admittedly no documents were placed before the detaining authority in support of these allegations. It is clearly spelt out from the allegations that the detenu is described as a confirmed threat to the ecological system and society and further he is involved in sandalwood smuggling by himself and by employing tribals as coolies and he has been preparing for committing more offences and causing grave and wide-spread danger to the ecological system. Even in the counter, it has not been stated as to how the allegations were made against the detenu. The authorities cannot escape by saying that it can be inferred and that it is common knowledge and that it can be known only through practical knowledge and experience. Even in the counter, it has not been stated as to how the allegations were made against the detenu. The authorities cannot escape by saying that it can be inferred and that it is common knowledge and that it can be known only through practical knowledge and experience. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner atleast in the affidavit filed by the Forest Ranger, he could have stated all these things and necessary documents could have been produced. In our view, the above averments are extraneous touching the character of the detenu and it might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or the other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. Hence, we are of the view that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order as held by the Supreme Court. Further there is every justification in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu had been deprived of making effective and purposeful representation under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India, since no particulars or details were given in regard to the involvement of the detenu in the sandalwood smuggling in many cases and in regard to the allegation that he was involved in smuggling by himself and by employing tribals as coolies and he has been preparing for committing more offences and causing grave and wide-spread danger to the ecological system and thereby causing loss to the government by his activities. No details are given in regard to the allegation that he made poor and innocent tribals as anti-social. Further, no details are given to prove the allegation that a sense of social insecurity is transmitted by him to the society. Even in the counter, no details have been given in respect, of the contentions raised in the affidavit and in the grounds challenging the order of detention. "in Vijayakumari vs. District Magistrate and Collector of NA. Further, no details are given to prove the allegation that a sense of social insecurity is transmitted by him to the society. Even in the counter, no details have been given in respect, of the contentions raised in the affidavit and in the grounds challenging the order of detention. "in Vijayakumari vs. District Magistrate and Collector of NA. and others, 1992 L. W. (Crl.) 166 wherein this Court in similar circumstances, after relying on the Supreme Court decision, had observed as follows:-"in the instant case no document was placed before that detaining authority in support of the allegations and even though an attempt has been made in the counter in support of the detention order by referring to some confessional statements recorded from the tribals in that area, such documents were not furnished to the detenu and the detenu has been deprived of making his effective representation as against those documents. The impugned order of detention is therefore, liable to be quashed. "applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of consideration of extraneous materials in arriving at a subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.