Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India calls in question the order of detention dated 17/12/1992 passed against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary tothe Government of India, respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (1) of theconservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activitiesact, 1974 (for short cofeposa ). ( 2 ) THE allegations against the petitioner are that he was intercepted atthe exit of the 101 Airport Terminal II, New Delhi on the night intervening19th and 20th November, 1992, on his arrival from Hongkong in an assumedname of Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal. On search of the person of thepetitioner, one wrapped packet was recovered from the inner waist pocketof his pant. This packet on opening was found to contain 35 gold biscuitsof 10 tolas each. The petitioner was not able to produce any document insupport of the legal possession and import of the aforesaid gold into India. Pursuant to the notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioneradmitted to have smuggled the aforesaid gold into into India with a motiveto earn profits. On the same date viz 20/11/1992 the petitioner wasarrested and was produced before the Court of ACMM, New Delhi,who remanded him to judicial custody till Decembr 4, 1992. Before theacmm on the said day the petitioner retracted the confession earlier madeto the customs authorities. On 17/12/1992 the impugned order ofdetention was passed against the petitioner which was served on him ondecember 19, 1992. ( 3 ) THE only ground urged before me by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner is that the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned orderconsidered irrelevant material which vitiates the detention order. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to ground (1) of thepetition where it is specifically pointed out that the Detaining Authorityrelied upon at least six documents which were wholly irrelevant to the question of detention of- the petitioner under the COFEPOSA. In reply toground (1) of the petition, the Detaining Authority in para 11 has stated asunder:- "ii. Regarding ground I of the petition, it is submitted that it isdetaining Authority who knows best which document help him andin what way in reaching the subjective satisfaction. In reply toground (1) of the petition, the Detaining Authority in para 11 has stated asunder:- "ii. Regarding ground I of the petition, it is submitted that it isdetaining Authority who knows best which document help him andin what way in reaching the subjective satisfaction. The documentswhich helps the Detaining Authority in reaching the subjective satisfaction directly or indirectly, the copies of the same were servedon the detenu as relied upon documents and the same is the legalrequirement. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the aforesaid reply shows that the Detaining Authorityhas not denied that it relied upon the documents REFERRED TO to in ground (1) ofthe petition in reaching the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have carefully gone through the documents REFERRED TO to in thepetition and I find that these documents are totally irrelevant and shouldnot have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority for reaching the subjective satisfaction. ( 6 ) THE first document is an application dated 23/11/1992filed by the petitioner in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. This applicationwas for return of the goods which were taken into possession by the DRIofficers while conducting the search of the petitioner. The second application, which is dated 27/11/1992, filed before the ACMM, New Delhipertains to soms newspaper reports which had been published in the variousnewspapers in regard to the case of the petitioner. In this application thepetitioner prayed that the DRI and the Public Prosecutor be directed not todisclose the facts of the case to the newspapers as this would prejudice hisdefence. ( 7 ) THE third document is a reply of the DRI to the application ofthe petitioner dated 23/11/1992. The fourth document is anapplication for grant of "b" Class facilities to the petitioner in Tihar Jail. ( 8 ) THE 5th document is an affidavit of the petitioner in support ofhis application for grant of b Class facilities in Tihar Jail. The 6th document is an application of the petitioner for histransfer from jail No. 3 to jail No. 1. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid documents to say the least were totally irrelevantand did not pertain to or had any bearing on the activities of the petitionerwhich were required to be prevented. There is a clear non-application ofmind by the Detaining Authority in regard to the passing of the impugnedorder of detention against the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid documents to say the least were totally irrelevantand did not pertain to or had any bearing on the activities of the petitionerwhich were required to be prevented. There is a clear non-application ofmind by the Detaining Authority in regard to the passing of the impugnedorder of detention against the petitioner. ( 10 ) THIS Court while dealing with the similar situation in Prabhatkumar Srivastava v. Union of India and Others, (Cri. W. No. 163 of 1993decided on 12/08/1993 observed as follows : "from the perusal of the above para, it is evident that all thedocuments which accompanied the grounds of detention were reliedupon by the Detaining Authority while forming the subjectivesatisfaction for the purpose of passing the detention order. Aperusal of the list of documents accompanying the grounds ofdetention would show that some of the documents are absolutelyirrelevant and should not have relied upon for reaching the subjective satisfaction". ( 11 ) AGAIN in Ved Parkash Sikri @ Vedi v. Union of India and Others42 (1990) Delhi Law Times 295 it was held as under : "i am conscious of the fact that the decision has to be arrived at bythe Detaining Authority by subjective satisfaction and Court is notto sit over judgment to find out if the material was sufficient orinsufficient. However, in case the Detaining Authority relies uponirrelevant document it would clearly indicate that there wascomplete non-application of mind. The law is well settled that allthe material against a person has to be placed before the Detainingauthority who has to scrutinise the same and has to rely only onmaterial documents showing the link of the person concerned withhis prejudicial acitivities. In case Smt. Shalini Soni and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1980) 4 S. C. C. 544, Supreme Court hasobserved as follows:". . . . . . It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional andadministrative, that whenever a decision making function isentrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matter only eschewing the irrelevant andthe remote. . . . . . It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional andadministrative, that whenever a decision making function isentrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matter only eschewing the irrelevant andthe remote. Where there is further an express statutory obligation to communicate not merely the decision but the groundson which the decision is founded, it is necessary corollary thatthe grounds communicated, that is, the grounds so madeknown, should be seen to pertain to pertinent and proximatematters and should comprise all the constituent facts andmaterials that went in to make up the mind of the statutoryfunctionary and not merely the inferential conclusions. . . . . ". ( 12 ) IN another case Diwan Singh Verma v. Union of India and Ors. ,1988 (2) Delhi Lawyer 197, it has been held that if the Detaining Authorityrelies upon a set of documents which provide no evidence against the detenu,it would follow that the application of mind was totally casual and mechanical and it was not the typs of the application of mind which the law insistsupon. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, thus, standsvitiated if some irrelevant documents are taken into consideration whilearriving at a conclusion to pass to order of detention. To the same effectare two cesesjagdish Mitr v. Union of india and Others, 1990 Crl. L. J-269and Cri. Writ Nos. 568, 686 and 691 of 1989 decided on 9/01/1990. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the facts of this case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon irrelevant documents on account of which the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is clear that there is non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority as the aforesaid documents are not in any manner shown to be connected with the prejudicial activities of the petitioner. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents urges that apart from the aforesaid six documents there are other documents which are absoultely relevant and pertinent to the question of detention of the petitioner. He submits that having regard to the remaining documents it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority did not correctly apply it? mind in making the order of detention against the petitioner. He submits that having regard to the remaining documents it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority did not correctly apply it? mind in making the order of detention against the petitioner. ( 15 ) IT is well settled that the High Court cannot sit in judgment overthe subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority for purposesof passing of a detention order against a person. A probe into the recessesof the mind of the Detaining Authority, to find out what weighed with itwhile reaching its subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order, isnot possible. In case, even if a probe is possible and is to be made withregard to the matters which are clearly in the domain of the detaining authority, then it will amount to substituting the opinion of the detaining authorityfor the opinion of the Court. Since, however, the detaining authority hasnot denied that it relied upon the aforesaid documents mentioned in Groundi of the petition, it is open to the Court to see whether these documents arerelevant and pertinent for the purpose of passing the detention order or not. On the face of it, the documents are not relevant and no reasonable mancould have relied upon them as they have no rationally probative value forthe purpose of forming the subjective satisfaction in regard to the matter inquestion. The Court would strike down an order passed by an Executiveauthority, where the authority has relied upon material which is extraneousto the scope and purpose of the statute. In these circumstances the Courtis entitled to interfere and must interfere in discharge of its constitutionalduly to knock down such an order. ( 16 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the detention order is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute and the detention order is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with some other matter.