JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu praying for his release on several grounds including that the safe-guards provided by the Constitution have not been complied with. The facts are not in dispute. The detention order Under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short COFEPOSA) Act No. 52 of 1974, against detenu, namely, Mohmmod Bhai alias Mohmmod Main S/o Nazir Bhai R/o Khoda Limda, Panwarbas, Palanpur (Gujarat) was passed by the State Government of Rajasthan on August 22, 1991. The detenu was arrested under the said order on March 8, 1996 and the ground of detention and documents on the basis of which the order of detention was passed, were supplied to him on the same day i.e., 8.3.96. On 3.4.96 the detenu made a representation to the Government which was not disposed of till the filing of the present writ petition on 30.4.96. 2. The detention order is being challenged on several grounds. One of the grounds is that the documents containing in 112 pages which were supply to the detenu, has no connection whatsoever with the ground s of detention served on him. Till the date of filing the writ petition on 30.4.96, the detenu was not supplied with copies of the documents which are said to be basis for passing the detention order. In the writ petition, a specific ground (M) has been taken that copies of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not supplied to the detenu. In the reply dated, 19.7.96 filed on behalf of the respondents, the above fact is not disputed and it has been averred that the detenu was supplied all the documents relied upon on 7.5.96. Subsequently. on behalf on the State of Rajasthan a separate reply was filed by Shri S.R. Yadav on 26.7 96 and in this reply also. It has been stated that the documents have been supplied to the detenu on 9.5.96. So, the undisputed facts are that the detenu was put under detention on 8.3.96 and on the same day, he was served with a detention Order with the grounds of detention, but the documents on the basis of which the detention order was passed, were not supplied to him and correct documents were supplied to him on 7.5.96 or 9.5.96 as pleaded by the respondents. We are, therefore, of the opinion that without going into other grounds, this ground alone is sufficient to allow this petition. 3. In Kamla Kanhaiyalal Khushlani v. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1981 SC 814 , it was held by the Apex Court that the documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention form an integrals part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention. It the documents and materials are supplied later, then the detenu is deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against the of detention." Similar view has been taken in Lallubhai Joqibhai v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728 ; Smt. Taramati Chandulal Sejpal v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 17 ; Suryakant v. State of Maharashtra, (1981)2SCC 202 ; Mehdi Mohamed joudi v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 358 and State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini . 4. In view of the settled proposition of law, this petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. It is directed that the detenu Mohmmod Bahi alias Mohmmod Mian S/o Nazir Bhai R/o Khoda Limda, Panwarbas, Palanpur (Gujarat), who is now posted in Central Jail, Jodhpur, shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case as his continued detention is void. 5. Before parting, we would like to express out serious concern about the manner in which the present matter was dealt with by the concerned officer (s). The serious mistake committed in the case may be on account of deliberate mischief or gross negligence, but in both situations it is unpardonable. Preventive detentions are made in public interest to prevent anti-social and Subversive elements from imperilling the welfare of the community. Simultaneous, in such matter, liberty of an individual citizen is also involved as he is put under detention without charge or trial. The Courts are, therefore, zealous to maintain constitutional safe-guards of the persons detained under preventive orders. By now, the law has been well expounded on the subject by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a series of judgments. The Courts are, therefore, zealous to maintain constitutional safe-guards of the persons detained under preventive orders. By now, the law has been well expounded on the subject by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a series of judgments. Inspite of that, we have come across, while dealing with such cases, of serious lapses on the part of the concerned officer (s) resulting in release of detenu (s) as the Officer dealing with the matter did not act in accordance with law laid down in various judgments. That shows that the "Cell" of the concerned Department, dealing with such matters, is not equipped with up-to date judgments laying down law on the matter. The very object of preventive detention orders is being frustructed by the errors on the part of the dealing officers. We hope and trust that the State Government shall take adequate steps in this direction to check such mistakes in future and if necessary, to suitably punish the concerned officer (s) if they are found guilty of deliberate mischief or gross negligence. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan.petition allowed. *******