Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner himself is the detenu. He has prayed for issue of a habeas, for his production before this Court, to be set free, after quashing the impugned order of detention dated 11. 2. 1992 passed against him by the second respondent 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, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) holding him to be a Forest Offender. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention will have to be stated. On 6. 2. 1992, a special party of Forest Officials of Singarapet Range, were petrolling Bommanatham Saragam of Singarapet Reserve Forest of Singarapet Beat at or about 4. 00 a. m. , when they noticed some persons carrying head loads. Immediately, the members of the special party surrounded the persons carrying head loads. They were able to apprehend only the detenu, while the other three persons escaped after throwing away their headloads. Examination of the head loads revealed, that they were sandalwood billets. The special party on further search, collected more quantity of sandalwood from nearby bushes on the information furnished by the detenu. Confession statement of the detenu was recorded. The sandalwood billets seized were affixed with hammer mark (W/v) before they were serially numbered. A forest case in Singarapet Range Office Offence No. 60/91-92 dated 6. 2. 1992 under Section 21 (d), (e) and (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (V of 1882) and Tamil Nadu Forest Amendment Act (45 of 1979) was booked. Accused were arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate with the seizures. Sandalwood seized weighed 153. 00 Kgs and was valued at Rs. 31,518/ -. The grounds of detention make a reference to O. R. 41/91-92, dated 30. 10. 1991 in which the detenu had come to adverse notice. The said case was also registered under Section 21 (d), (e), (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (V of 1882) and Tamil Nadu Forest Amendment Act (45 of 1979 ). The allegations therein show that on 30. 10. 1991, detenu and his associates, had illegally entered into Chenna Samudram Reserve Forest and indulged in illicit cutting, collection and removal of sandalwood weighing 187. 000 Kgs, worth Rs. 37,774/ -. The allegations therein show that on 30. 10. 1991, detenu and his associates, had illegally entered into Chenna Samudram Reserve Forest and indulged in illicit cutting, collection and removal of sandalwood weighing 187. 000 Kgs, worth Rs. 37,774/ -. A car bearing Registration No. MSQ 6719 was used for smuggling. The said case was under investigation. Mrs. R. Subadra Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged two contentions. The grounds of detention show, that the detenu is a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually, for which no material was either placed before the detaining authority or served on the detenu. ii. Representation dated 20. 3. 1992 forwarded to the detaining authority, has not yet been disposed of, for no communication regarding any disposal, has been served on the detenu till today. ( 3 ) ON these two contentions, we have heard Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He contended that under the definition Forest Offender, in Act 14 of 1882, habit has not been contemplated, contra distinguished from habit mentioned in the definition of "goonda". However, he was unable to place any material to indicate, that the detenu was a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually. He fairly stated that except the adverse notice case referable to O. R. No. 41/91-92 of Singarapet Range, no other material was placed before the detaining authority. On the second ground, he submitted that the representation has been promptly disposed of. ( 4 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions placed before us. We do not think it, necessary to dwell in detail, on the second ground, for the petitioner, is bound to succeed even on his first contention. The grounds of detention specifically state that He is thus a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually. This statement, on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been arrived at, must certainly have been based on material placed before him. It is true, that under the definition Forest Offender habit has not been mentioned. However, the authority while choosing to detain the petitioner has satisfied himself on the material placed before him, that the detenu was a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually. It is fairly stated by Mr. It is true, that under the definition Forest Offender habit has not been mentioned. However, the authority while choosing to detain the petitioner has satisfied himself on the material placed before him, that the detenu was a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually. It is fairly stated by Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that no material has been supplied to the detenu, to indicate his involvement in forest offences repeatedly and habitually, apart from the ground case, and the adverse notice case. He was equally fair in representing, that no material was supplied to the detenu, to show that he was a proven dangerous forest offender. After perusal of the documents supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, confirmed, that no document to indicate that the detenu was a proven dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually had been supplied to the detenu. If that be so, it is obvious, that the detaining authority has relied upon extraneous material, not supplied to the detenu. Non-supply of such vital material, obviously, has prevented the detenu from making an effective representation, challenging his detention. On that sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This writ petition is allowed.