Mr. Mohd. Shamim, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been moved by one Naginchand Jain for issue of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India for issue of a direction for release of the petitionerand for quashment of the detention order dated 2. 1. 1992 passed against himunder Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preventionof Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to as COFEPOSA for the sakeof brevity ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under:that on receipt of an intelligence that a huge quantity of contrabandsilver was being transported to Delhi by Mahindra Jeep bearing registrationno. MP-09a-9007. the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhizone intercepted the said vehicle on Delhi Mathura Road, Sarai khwajapolice Check Post at about 16. 00 hrs. on 16. 12. 1991 alongwith its twooccupants namely Shri Subhash Chandra Bhandari and Shri Dinesh Sharma. On search of the said vehicle it resulted in the recovery of silver weighing431. 652 kgs. valued at Rs. 33,12,929. 00. On the basis of the said seizure thehouse of the petitioner was also searched and the petitioner was taken awayfrom his residence i. e. 1-50, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. The officersrecorded the statement of the petitioner u/sec. 108 of the Customs Act (herein-after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience) under force, duressand torture. The petitioner was arrested alongwith Shri Subhash Chanderbhandari on 17. 12. 1991. The petitioner was produced before ACMM, Newdelhi where he retracted from his earlier statement made by him u/sec. 108of the Customs Act. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicialcustody. The petitioner moved an application for release on bail on21. 12. 1991. The same was rejected. An application for bail was also movedbefore the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 26/12/1991. However, while the said application was pending an order of detention dated2. 1. 1992 was passed. The same was served on the petitioner on 3. 1. 1992. The petitioner thereupon wrote a letter on 9. 1. 19 92 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi forsupply of documents and other material information for making an effectiveand purposeful representation. The Central Government rejected the saidrequest vide order dated 23. 1. 1992. Arepresentation was again made tothe Central Government on 21. 2. The petitioner thereupon wrote a letter on 9. 1. 19 92 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi forsupply of documents and other material information for making an effectiveand purposeful representation. The Central Government rejected the saidrequest vide order dated 23. 1. 1992. Arepresentation was again made tothe Central Government on 21. 2. 1992, however, the same was rejected vidememo dated 24. 2. 1992. The petitioner filed yet another representation on17. 2. 1992 before the Central Government where through he raised additionalgrounds. The Central Government confirmed the detention of the petitionerfor a period of one year from 3. 1. 1992 onwards vide order dated 31. 3. 1992. The said detention order is absolutely illegal, invalid and is thus liable to beset aside inasmuch as the detaining authority took into consideration quitea good number of documents which were not relevant and material for thepurposes of detention of the petitioner. It thus vitiated the subjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority. It also goes along to show that thedetaining authority did not apply its mind to the grounds of the detentionof the petitioner properly at the time of the passing of the impugned orderdated 2. 1. 1992. Hence arose the necessity for the presentation of the presentwrit petition. ( 3 ) THE respondent in their counter affidavit did not controvert theabove facts. However, it has been urged for and on behalf of the respondentthat the impugned detention order dated 2. 1. 1992 is perfectly legal and valid. It was passed after a due consideration and after taking into considerationall the relevant material with a view to preventing petitioner from abettingthe smuggling of goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than byengaging in transporting or concealing smuggled goods in future. ( 4 ) THE only ground on which the learned Counsel for the petitionerhas assailed the legality and the validity of the impugned detention orderdated Jan. 2, 1992 is that the detaining authority while passing the impugneddetention order took into consideration not only the documents connectedwith the alleged smuggling activities of the petitioner but besides the saiddocuments also took into consideration several documents which are quiteirrelevant and immaterial and have got absolutely no link or any sort ofnexus with the alleged smuggling activities attributed to the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent Mr. Bansal has on the otherhand urged to the contrary. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent Mr. Bansal has on the otherhand urged to the contrary. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at sufficientlength and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and havegiven my anxious thought thereto. ( 7 ) SINCE we are concerned in the instant case with the only proposition of law as to what sort of material is required to be considered by thedetaining authority at the time of the passing of the impugned order, itwould be in the fitness of things to examine the law on this point as laiddown by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. ( 8 ) A metter very much akin to the matter in hand i. e. what sort ofmaterial is to be considered by the detaining authority at the time of thepassing of the impugned detention order came up for interpretation beforetheir Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in 1980 Cr. L. J. 1487,smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India. Their Lordships of the Supreme Courtwere of the view. . . . . . "it is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional andadministrative, that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted tothe subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicitobligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only,eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. " ( 9 ) THEIR Lordships further wayback in the year 1975 laid downcertain guidelines for the detaining authority to formulate an opinion as towhether to pass an order of detention or not to do so, as reported in Sadhuroy v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 919 . . . . . . "the satisfaction,though attenuated by subjectivity, must be realand rational, not randomdivination, must flow from an advertance to relevant factors, not be a mockrecital or machanical chant of statutorily sanctified phrases. " ( 10 ) A Single Judge of this Court while placing reliance on theauthority alluded to above, observed as under, in Diwan Singh Verma vunion of India and Ors. . 1988 (2) Delhi Lawyer 197. . . . . . "in the present case,both in the grounds of detention as also in the return the detaining authorityinsist that it has relied on this set of documents also in arriving at subjectivesatisfaction. . 1988 (2) Delhi Lawyer 197. . . . . . "in the present case,both in the grounds of detention as also in the return the detaining authorityinsist that it has relied on this set of documents also in arriving at subjectivesatisfaction. The documents are the same as are appearing at pages 63 to72 of the writ petition and I have already indicated that there is nothing inthese documents which would show any link of the detenu or his accomplicewith the alleged prejudicial activity. If the detaining authority had reallyapplied its mind and if the subjective satisfaction was really based on properapplication of mind the detaining authority would not have said that it hasalso relied on this set of documents. There was nothing to prevent thedetaining authority from stating that these documents were also placed before it but they were not relied upon. However, that type of statement couldonly be made if the detaining authority had really applied its mind. Thisclearly goes to show that the application of mind in the present case is totallycasual and machanical and it is not the type of the application of mindwhich the law insists upon. If the detaining authority says that it has alsorelied on a set of documents which provided no evidence against the detenu,it naturally follows that he has not cared to go into the material. " ( 11 ) IT is crystal clear from the authoritative pronouncementsadverted to above, that while passing a detention order the detaining authority should place reliance only on those discerning few documents whichare very much relevant and material and which have got a proximity, nexusand link with the prejudicial activity of the detenu. In case the detainingauthority also takes into consideration documents which are in no wayconnected and have got absolutely to nexus of any kind, whatsoever,withthe prejudicial activity of the detenu it will go to show that the detainingauthority did not apply its mind and the subjective satisfaction of thedetaining authority in those few cases would be not of that type and kindwhich the law insists upon. In that eventuality it will vitiate the subjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority. ( 12 ) WITH the above background let us come to the case in hand. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. In that eventuality it will vitiate the subjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority. ( 12 ) WITH the above background let us come to the case in hand. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Harjinder Singh while anim-advertingon the documents which are alleged to have been relied upon by the detainingauthority at the time of the passing of the impugned order has shown mequite a good number of documents which are absolutely in no way connectedand have got no nexus, whatsoever, with the alleged prejudicial activity ofthe petitioner. He has in this connection referred to a statement mentionedat Sr. No. 6 of the list of the documents relied upon, made by Dinesh Sharmadated 18/ 16/12/1991. A close scrutiny of the said statement revealsthat it has got absolutely nothing to do with the alleged prejudicial activityof the petitioner. Then, there is an application dated 17/12/1991for appropriate orders mentioned at serial No. 12 of the list of documentsrelied upon. The said application has also got absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, with the alleged smuggling activities of the petitioner, hence wasconsideration to arrive at the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The learned Counsel has then led me through an application dated 18/12/1991 for the release of jama talashi moved by the petitioner. It finds amention at serial No. 14 of the list of documents relied upon. Obviously,an application for the return of the personal search of a detenu has gotnothing to do with the alleged smuggling activities of the detenu. Then,there is an application dated 18/12/1991, mentioned at serial No. 15of the list of documents relied upon, for the grant of b. Class Jail. Thereis no gain-saying the fact that the consideration of the said document wasin no way relevant and material for the purposes of dentention of thepetitioner. Last. but not the least, is the bail application dated 21/12/1991. mentioned at serial No. 16 of the list of documents relied upon,moved by the petitioner. The said application. I feel, is absolutely of noconsequence as far as the detention of the petitioner is concerned. ( 13 ) IT has been stated for and on behalf of the petitioner at page 22,ground XIV, of the petition, that the detaining authority while passing theimpugned order took not only into consideration the documents adverted toabove, but also the Income-tax record of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IT has been stated for and on behalf of the petitioner at page 22,ground XIV, of the petition, that the detaining authority while passing theimpugned order took not only into consideration the documents adverted toabove, but also the Income-tax record of the petitioner. The respondentin their reply at page 14 (vide Para XIV) have nowhere denied the consideration of the above-said documents. Rather, they have stated that besidesthe documents referred to above, all other relevant documents were alsoconsidered by the detaining authority. It can thus be safely concluded fromabove that this is not the case of the respondent that certain irrelevant andimmaterial documents found a mention in the list of the documents reliedupon by the detaining authority at the time of the passing of the impugnedorder of detention, but the same were not considered. Rather, the sheetanchor of their defence version is that besides the said irrelevant andimmaterial documents, relevant and material documents, too, were also takeninto consideration while passing the impugned order for the detention of thepetitioner. While disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/92 andcriminal Writ Petition No. 256/92, Shri Trilochan Singh v. Union of India andothers, an effort was made by this Court to define a relevant and material document for the purposes of the dentention of a detenu. This Courtobserved. . . . . . "a document can be said to be relevant and material in a givensituation when it is likely to sway the opinion of detaining authority oneway or the other. " ( 14 ) IF we take into consideration in the light of the above observations and definition of a material document then we come to the conclusionthat by no stretch of imagination it can be said that an application for grantof b. Class jail. Income-tax record, an application for the return of personalsearch, statement of Dinesh Sharma and an application for passingappropriate orders are in any way connected with or have any nexus to theprejudicial activities of the petitioner or they could have in any way affectedthe subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The consideration ofthe said documents by the detaining authority at the time of the passing ofthe impugned order dated 2/01/1992 goes to show and a long way toprove that the detaining authority did not apply its mind properly whilearriving at the subjective satisfaction. The consideration ofthe said documents by the detaining authority at the time of the passing ofthe impugned order dated 2/01/1992 goes to show and a long way toprove that the detaining authority did not apply its mind properly whilearriving at the subjective satisfaction. No effort was made by the detainingauthority to exclude the irrelevant and immaterial documents from therelevant and the material documents i. e. to say to separate the grain fromthe chaff. ( 15 ) IN view of the above I am of the view that there was no application of the mind which the law. insists upon, at the time of the passing ofthe impugned detention order. It thus vitiated the subjective satisfaction ofthe detaining authority. This Court is thus of the view that the impugnedorder was passed in a casual, mechanical and perfunctory manner. It isthus liable to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner is thus entitled tosucceed. The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 2/01/1992 is hereby quashed. The petitioner be set at liberty at once in case heis not required to be detained in any other case.