Mr. Mohd. Sharnim ( 1 ) THESE are two criminal writ petitions bearingno. 247/92 and 256/92 moved by Shri Trilochan Singh and Shri Devendersingh under Articles 226 ofid 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of awrit of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ for the immediaterelease of the petitioners and for setting aside the detention order bearing F. No. 673/83/92-CUS. VIII and F. No. 673/81/92-CUS. VIII, dated March24, 1992 under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange andprevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as thecofeposa ) issued by Sh. Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The writpetitions are being taken up together as common questions of law and factsare to be gone into while disposing them of. ( 2 ) IT would be just and proper to examine in brief the facts whichled to the presentation of the abovesaid two petitioner in order to fully andproperly appreciate the points involved herein, ( 3 ) THE officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence on thebasis of an intelligence gathered and developed by them on 1/03/1992intercepted a Gypsy Maruti Car with registration No. DL-3c-A-9591 athyderpur Market near Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, with petitionerdevender Singh and one Ram Gopal therein. Rummaging of the saidvehicle resulted to the recovery and seizure of 110 foreign marked gold barsof 10 tolas each which weighed 12. 830. 40 gm. and valued at Rs. 59. 66,136. 00. On demand neither Shri Devender Singh nor Shri Ram Gopal could produceany evidence, documentary or otherwise, for the lawful possession of theaforesaid gold. Hence, the same was seized under Section 110 of the Customsact. As a follow-up action premises bearing No. 175. Raja Garden,new Delhi, belonging to one Gautam Morarji Pandit Pautra, a friend of thepetitioner Shri Trilochan Singh, was suarched. It led to the recovery ofthree briefcases, one polythene bag and one raxin bag containing 50 foreignmarked gold bars Rs. 27,11,880. 00 and Indian currency amounting tors. 12,05,000. 00 from the possession of Trilochan Singh petitioner. Maruticar bearing registration No. DL-2c-7407 parked outside the residencealluded to above which was in possession of the petitioner Trilochan Singhwas also searched. It resulted in the recovery of Indian currency amountingto Rs. 24 lacs and foreign currency $ 42,284 and 2080. 27,11,880. 00 and Indian currency amounting tors. 12,05,000. 00 from the possession of Trilochan Singh petitioner. Maruticar bearing registration No. DL-2c-7407 parked outside the residencealluded to above which was in possession of the petitioner Trilochan Singhwas also searched. It resulted in the recovery of Indian currency amountingto Rs. 24 lacs and foreign currency $ 42,284 and 2080. ( 4 ) BOTH the petitioners and Shri Ram Gopal made statements onbeing interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act. They werearrested and produced before a Magistrate on the following day. Theyretracted from their statements as the same, according to them, wereobtained under duress and after torture and use of third degree methods. They were remanded to judicial custody. While they were injudicial custodythe orders of detention were passed on 24/03/1922 by Shrimahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry offinance, Department of Revenue, against the petitioners. The detentionorder against Shri Trilochan Singh petitioner was passed to prevent him fromengaging in keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing smuggled goods infuture. Whereas the order of detention against Shri Devender Singh petitioner was passed to prevent him from engaging in transporting smuggledgoods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods in future. The detention orders were servedon the petitioners on 25/03/1992. The petitioner Trilochan Singh made. a representation against the said detention order on 10/04/1992. Howeverthe same was sent from the jail to the respondent on 22/04/1992. Therepresentation made by Shri Devender Singh petitioner on 10/04/1992was sent to the respondent on 20/04/1992 through the Superintendent,central Jail, Tihar. The representations have neither been considered by therespondent nor were disposed of. ( 5 ) THE detention orders thus passed against the petitioners areillegal and invalid as the same were passed in flagrant disregard of Articles14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the same are soughtto be quashed through the present writ petitions. ( 6 ) THE respondents put in contest. They have filed a counteraffidavit. According to the respondent, the impugned detention orderspassed against the petitioners are perfectly legal and valid and are in no wayviolative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the same are soughtto be quashed through the present writ petitions. ( 6 ) THE respondents put in contest. They have filed a counteraffidavit. According to the respondent, the impugned detention orderspassed against the petitioners are perfectly legal and valid and are in no wayviolative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner S. Herjinder Singh has vehementlycontended that the Detaining Authority in the instant case while passing theimpugned orders dated 24/03/1992 did not rely upon the relevant andmaterial documents connected with and related to the alleged smugglingactivities of the petitioners. According to the learned Counsel they tookinto consideration quite a good number of documents which are in no wayand even remotely, connected with the impugned alleged smuggling activitiesof the petitioners. The contention of the learned Counsel proceeds furtherthat if this is so. it vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and the impugned detention orders are liable to be quashed on thisground alone. The learned Counsel in support of his argument has led thiscourt through various authoritative pronouncements made by the Hon blesupreme Court and this Court. This aspect of the matter as to which is thematerial which is to be considered by the Detaining Authority while formingthe subjective stisfaction about the passing of the detention order came upfor consideration before their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shalinisoni v. U. O. I. , 1980 Crl. L. J. 1487. Their Lordships opined asunder:. . . . . . " It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, thatwhenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply hismind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant andthe remote. " ( 8 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court as far back as the year1975 laid down certain guidelines for the Detaining Authority to arrive at asubjective satisfaction while passing the detention order as reported in Sadhuroy v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 919 . . . . . . . . . "the satiafaction,though attentuated by subjectivity must be real and rational, not randomdivination, must flow from an advertence to relevant factors, not be a mockrecital or mechanical chant of statutorily sanctified phrases. . . . . . . . . "the satiafaction,though attentuated by subjectivity must be real and rational, not randomdivination, must flow from an advertence to relevant factors, not be a mockrecital or mechanical chant of statutorily sanctified phrases. " ( 9 ) A matter very much akin to the matter in hand came up fordetermination before a Single Judge of this Court as reported in Diwan Singhverma v. Union of India and Others, 1988 (2) Delhi Lawyer 197. . . . . . . . . inthe present case, both in the grounds of detention as also in the return thedetaining Authority insists that it has relied on this set of documents also inarriving at subjective satisfaction. The documents are the same as areappearing at pages 63 to 72 of the Writ Petition and I have already indicatedthat there is nothing in these documents which would show any link of thedetenu or his accomplice with the alleged prejudicial activity. If the Detaining Authority had really applied its mind and if the subjective satisfactionwas really based on proper application of mind the detaining authority wouldnot have said that it has also relied on this set of documents. There wasnothing to prevent the detaining authority from staling that those documentswere also placed before it but they were not relied upon. However, thattype of statement could only be made if the detaining authority had reallyapplied its mind. This clearly goes to show that the application of mind inthe present case is totally casual and mechanical and it is not the type of theapplication of mind which the law insists upon. If the detaining authoritysays that it has also relied on a set of documents which provided no evidenceagainst the detenu, it naturally follows that he has not cared to go into the material. " ( 10 ) IT is fully manifest from the authorities alluded to above that thedetaming authority while passing the impugned order should take intoconsideration only those discerning few documents which are relevant andmaterial and which are connected with the prejudicial activities of the detenu. He should not take into consideration the documents of the material whichis in no way connected with the prejudicial activities of a detenu. He should not take into consideration the documents of the material whichis in no way connected with the prejudicial activities of a detenu. In casethis is not done then it will show that there was no proper application ofmind and the detaining authority dealt with a matter which relates to thefreedom of an individual in a casual, mechanical and a perfunctory manner. ( 11 ) WITH the above background let us now see as to whether thedetaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction after fully applyingits mind ? The learned Counsel for the petitioner in order to show andprove that this was not so has led me through pa. ra 14 (xiii) of the petitionerbeing Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/92 (Page 18), and para 13 (xii) ofthe Criminal Writ Petition No. 256/92 (Page 16 ). It has been stated thereinthat the detaining authorities took into consideration as many as 18 documents which were absolutely irrelevant and immaterial to form an opinionwith regard to the detention of the petitioner. According to the petitionersthe detaining authority took into consideration application for grant of b class, a divorce deed dated 16/12/1991, a receipt pertaining to thegift items, house-hold items and Istridhan, a progress report of Kanwarjitsingh from Sanwal Shah Model School. This goes to show the non-application of mind and makes the detention illegal and bad in law. Therespondent in their counter-affidavit have nowhere denied in the corresponding paras that they did not consider and rely upon the said documents. They have simply contented themselves by staling that all the documentsrelied upon by the detaining authority at the time of the passing of theimpugned order were relevant and material. Learned Counsel for therespondent, however, has miserably failed to show me as to bow the saiddocuments were relevant and material. In fact, he has not argued any thingon this point except stating that the said documents were quite relevant andmaterial. However, to my mind, a simply saying so would not make adocument relevant and material for the purpose of the detention of a petitioner. Relevancy of a particular document is to be determined while keepingin mind its proximity and link with the prejudicial activities of a detenu, Adocument can be said to be relevant and material in a given situation whenit is likely to sway the opinion of detaining authority one way or the other. Relevancy of a particular document is to be determined while keepingin mind its proximity and link with the prejudicial activities of a detenu, Adocument can be said to be relevant and material in a given situation whenit is likely to sway the opinion of detaining authority one way or the other. ( 12 ) THIS is not the case of the respondent that there were certainirrelevant and immaterial documents in the list of documents relied upon,but they were not taken into consideration by the detaining authority at thetime of the passing of the impugned order. On the other hand. the respondent have in their counter stated that the said documents were quite relevantand material for the purpose of the present case. I fail to understand as tohow an application for grant of B Class to the petitioners, a divorce deed,receipts with regard to the gift items, house-hold items and Istridhan andprogress report of Kanwarjit Singh from Sanwal Shah Model School can besaid to be relevant and material to affect the subjective setisfaction of thedetaining authority. A duty has thus been cast on the shoulders of thedetaining authority to separate the relevant from the irrelevant that is to saygrain from the chaff. Only those documents which are relevant and materialane connected with the prejudicial activities are to be taken into consideration at the time of passing the detention order. If this is not done it goesto show that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and passed theorder in a mechanical, casual and perfunctory manner. ( 13 ) IN view of the above I conclude that the consideration of theirrelevant documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detainingauthority. Hence, the detention orders are liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) SINCE the impugned detention orders are liable to be quashed onthis ground alone, this Court need not go into the other grounds. ( 15 ) THE Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 247/92 and 256/92 are herebyallowed. The detention orders dated 24/03/1992 are hereby quashedthe petitioners be set at liberty at once in case they are not required to bedetained in any other case.