JUDGMENT Thangaraj, J. : This petition is filed by the mother of the detenue challenging the order of detention made by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai under Sec.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). 2. By the said order, in No.316 of 1997, dated 2.8.1997, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai the 2nd respondent herein, has declared one Baskar alias Baskaran, aged 31 years, as a ‘bootlegger’ within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Act.14of 1982, as there was compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in any such activities which are prejudial to the maintenance of public order under the said Act. 3. The Detaining Authority has shown the following cases to vouch the activities of the detenue which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order: (a) In E.1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1302 of 1996, for an offence under Sec.4 (1) (a) T.N.P. Act, he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500 in default simple imprisonment for one week, by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (b) In E.1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.2034 of 1996, for an offence under Sec.4 (1) (a) T.N.P. Act, he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500 in default simple imprisonment for one month, by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (c) In E.1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1289 of 1997, for an offence under Sec.4 (1) (a) T.N.P. Act, he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500 in default simple imprisonment for one month, by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (d) In E.1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1493 of 1997, for an offence under Sec.4 (1) (a) Transport T.N.P. Act, a case was registered against him on 21.7.1997 and same is under investigation. 4. Apart from these four cases, the Detaining Authority has shown one more case registered against him a the ground case wherein on 28.7.1997 at 5.00 p.m. on a complaint of one Sundarraj, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore Police Station, went to 65th Block, Dommingkuppam, Foreshore Estate, Santhome, Chennai, along with the said Sundarraj and found the accused and another Tmt.Mariyakolunthu were selling I.D. arrack to public in glass tumblers by collecting money. By seeking the police party the persons who were drinking arrack an away from there and the Inspector of Police apprehended the detenue Baskar and Tmt.Mariyakolunthu, seized the contrabands and the sale proceeds of Rs.20 took two bottles of 500 ml. of arrack in each for sample, destroyed the remaining portion of the arrack and took the accused along with the contrabands to E.l, Mylapore Police station where he registered a case in Crime No.1528 of 1997 against the accused Baskar for an offence under Sec.4 (1) (a) T.N.P. Act, 193 7 and 328, I.P.C. and took up investigation. The accused was remanded to the judicial custody by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 5. The petitioner has stated number of grounds in the petitioner, challenging the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to only one ground i.e. (1) The Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of the detention. To substantiate the said ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the records and show some errors which were not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention and such errors would amount to such-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The general principle that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, has to be followed generally in all cases. However, there are certain exceptional circumstances which will make the court to see whether the Detaining Authority has applied its mind while passing the order of detention. Such non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority will not fail under subjective satisfaction and the same can be subjected to judicial review. Though the court cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged as grounds for detention, it can very well go into the question whether the Detaining Authority has applied its mind while passing the order of detention. Though the court cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged as grounds for detention, it can very well go into the question whether the Detaining Authority has applied its mind while passing the order of detention. In order to substantial the same, the learned counsel for petitioner has shown two reasons: (1) Though the accused has not applied for bail at the time passing the order of detention on 2.8.1997, the Detaining Authority in his order in para-4 has stated that there was imminent possibility of the accused Baskar, who was in remand, would file bail application and come out on bail and if comes out on bail he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudical to the maintenance of public order. (2) The Detaining Authority without properly looked into the documents and if any error was found without assigning any reason to the said error has passed the order of detention. Regarding the records assigned by the Detaining Authority that there was imminent possibility of the accused being released on bail and if released he would indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to the public order, there was nothing or record to show that the accused had either applied for bail or his bail application was pending consideration on the date passing the detention order. A perusal of the entire file would go to show that there was no document to substantiate the said allegation which along with other reasons had weighed in the mind of Detaining Authority to pass the order of detention forthwith. In the absence of any such document for substantiate the said reason, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has assigned a reason without applying its mind while passing the order of detention. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of Delhi Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of Delhi, (1994)1 Supp. S.C.C. 597 at pages 598 and 600the Apex Court held: “.. It is submitted that on the date the order of detention was made the petitioner was injudicial custody. The bail petitions filed by him were dismissed finally on June 9, 1992. He did not move any bail application thereafter. No bail application was pending on August 18, 1992. There was no other circumstances indicating that the petitioner would be released from custody. The bail petitions filed by him were dismissed finally on June 9, 1992. He did not move any bail application thereafter. No bail application was pending on August 18, 1992. There was no other circumstances indicating that the petitioner would be released from custody. In these circumstances, there was no material before the authority to believe that there was a real possibility of petitioner being enlarged on bail or being released and that it is necessary to detain him to prevent him from engaging in prejudicial activity. The learned Additional Solicitor-General placed before us the relevant file but he could not bring to our notice any material indicating that the release of the petitioner was likely or that there was a real possibility of his being released and/or that the authority was satisfied about the said aspect. In the circumstances, we must hold that the principle enunciated by this Court in Kamarunnisa v. Union of India squarely applies and the order is liable to be quashed.” This decision squarely applies to the present case there is nothing on record to show that on the date of passing the order, of detention, any bail application filed by the accused Baskar was pending consideration by the court of law. Therefore it is clear that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention. 6. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority without properly considering the documents and also without stating any reasons to the errors found on the documents has passed the order of detention. Learned counsel for petitioner shown us the statement of Mohan, Police Constable (P.C.No.7317) of Mylapore Police Station, recorded by the Inspector of Police that though the statement was recorded on 29.7.1997 he had spoken to certain acts which were done on 30.7.1997. Thiru Mohan, Police Constable, would not have spoken to any acts which were done on 30.7.1997, even on the earlier date i.e., on 29.7.1997. While perusing the said document, it is clear that the date 30.7.1997 has been altered, though originally it was recorded as 29.7.1997, since the Chemical Analyst Report and the unexpended portion of the arrack were handed over to him by Chemical Analyst on 30.7.1997. While perusing the said document, it is clear that the date 30.7.1997 has been altered, though originally it was recorded as 29.7.1997, since the Chemical Analyst Report and the unexpended portion of the arrack were handed over to him by Chemical Analyst on 30.7.1997. It is an error apparent on the face of it, though it is the statement of a witness recorded by the investigation officer during the investigation, the Detaining Authority who passed the order of detention had not considered the said error before passing the order of detention. As the right and liberty of an individual is involved in the order of detention, the authority who passed the order should satisfy himself and also satisfy the conscience of the court which reviews the said order and When the authority fails in his act, the affected individual is always entitled to show that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention. Therefore the said reason has to be taken in favour of the detenue and on that ground also it is clear that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind properly while passing the order of detention. These two reasons clearly renewal the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and therefore the order is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 2.8.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. S.S.-----Petition allowed.