V. Dutta Gyani, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the detenu-petitioner prays for quashing the detention order dated 19.8.97 passed by the District Magistrate. Goalpara in exercise of his powers conferred by sub- section (2) and (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and prays for a writ of Habeas Corpus. 2. Since the order passed has a decisive impact on the fate of this petition, it is reproduced herein for ready reference : "Government of Assam : Office of the Distirct Magistrate : Goalpara Order of Detention under NSA 1980 Whereas the undersigned is satisfied on the basis of the dossier prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara in respect of the person known as Shri Manik Khakhlary @ Moni Brahma son of Shri Madhav Khakhlary of village Sarapara. PS Rongjuli, Dist Goalpara, Assam that with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejuicial to the security of the Slate and to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act read with Govt. notification No.PLA.326/97/2 dated 31.5.97, the undersigned hereby directs that the said Shri Manik Khakhlary son of Mahadev Khakhlary be detained in the District Jail, Guwahati, Kamrup until further orders. The person against whom this order of preventive detention is made for compelling reasons is already in judicial custody but is likely to be released whereupon it is highly probable that he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the security of the State after his release. Given under my hand and seal this 19th ay of August, 1997. (S. Mukherjee) District Magistrate, Goalpara" 3. Mr. AC Borbora, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention order, inter alia, on the grounds that basic facts and materials constituting the grounds of detention, as contained in Annexure B as supplied to the detenu, were not communicated, thus depriving him an opportunity of making an effective representation. The grounds as contained in Annexure B were not conterfiporaneously prepared along with the detention order, thus vitiating the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. There was total non application of mind. The grounds as contained in Annexure B were not conterfiporaneously prepared along with the detention order, thus vitiating the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. There was total non application of mind. Admittedly some vital facts constituting the grounds of detention have not been disclosed to the detenu and invoking the plea of Article 22(6) of the Constitution in the affidavit-in-opposition as sworn and filed by the respondent No.3. the District Magistrate, is of no avail in view of the fact that Annexure B, the grounds of detention as communicated to the detenu does not contain even a remotest reference either to Article 22 (6) or section 8 (2) of the Act. Malice in fact and malice in law has also been alleged against the detaining authority. There was undue inordinate delay in disposing of the representation. Detenu was not further informed of his right to make a representation to the Central Govt.. The respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition have disputed and denied the grounds taken by the detenu. There contention is firstly, there was no delay in disposal of representation and whatever time was taken has been amply explained. The grounds of detention are valid for the purpose and all necessary facts constituting the grounds were supplied to the detenu. Invoking the plea of Article 22(6) of the Constitution, the detaining authority respondent No.3 has in his affidavit in para 4 has deposed as under : "That with regard to the statements made in para 4 and 5 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the detention order was passed based upon police dossier wherein specific mention was made about the violent and illegal activities engaged in by the detenu which are prejudicial to the security of the State and to the maintenance of public order. The grounds clearly establish that the detenu is a long standing and committed member of a banned extremist organisation with the aim of secession of Assam from the Indian Union. The grounds supplied to the detenu were specific and detailed enough to enable him to submit a representation against the detention order. No prayer or request was ever made for additional document by the detenu and if he had made any such request it would have been duly considered by the deponent. The grounds supplied to the detenu were specific and detailed enough to enable him to submit a representation against the detention order. No prayer or request was ever made for additional document by the detenu and if he had made any such request it would have been duly considered by the deponent. The making available of the dossier/report is subject to provisions of Article 22 (5) and the same cannot be supplied to the detenu. As such there is no violation of Article 22 (5) as alleged. 4. Heard learned counsel Mr. AC Borbora with Mr. BD Konwar, for the detenu- petitioner and the learned Addl Advocate General Mr. AC Bora, for the respondent State of Assam and Mr. RP Kakati. learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel. 5. Let us first examine the grounds of detention. Annexure B and the detention order, Annexure A putting them together in juxtaposition. A mere reading of the detention order Annexure A, goes to show that the satisfaction of the detaining authonty is based on dossier prepared by the Superintendent of Police of the district. The opening paragraph of the detention order, Annexure A, as quoted below makes it abundantly clear. "Whereas the undersigned is satisfied on the basis of the dossier prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara in respect of the per m known as Shri ManikKhakhlary @ Moni Brahma son of Shri Mahadev Khakhlary of village Sarapara, PS Rongjuli, Dist Goalpara, Assam that with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the National Security Act. 1980”.(emphasis supplied) 6. The detention order dated 19th day of August, 1997. Annexure A, does not speak of grounds of detention and Annexure B, the grounds of detention which bears no date, thus reinforcing the petitioner's contention that the same was not contemporaneously prepared, does not make any reference on the dossier on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based. It is also significant to note that there is absolutely no reference to Article 22 (6) of the Constitution or section 8(2) of the Act, which reads as follows : "8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order. It is also significant to note that there is absolutely no reference to Article 22 (6) of the Constitution or section 8(2) of the Act, which reads as follows : "8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order. (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Govt.. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose/' 7. To contend in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition thatdisclosure of certain facts was against public interest itself reveals that certainfacts were not disclosed to the detenu. This plea should have taken in the groundsof detention itself as contained in Annexure B but the same is conspicuouslymissing. The object of communication of grounds of the order of detention is toenable the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against theorder of detention. If for some valid reason the detaining authority is of the view that disclosure of certain facts is against public interest, the detenu must know, it is not as if such plea is to be taken when petition for a writ of Hebeas Corpus is filed. The detenu must be apprised of this fact. This omission on the part of thedetaining authority, may be in a given case, prove vital. While it is true that sub­ section (2) of section 8 of the Act empowers the detaining authority to refuse todisclose certain facts which he considers to be against public interest to disclose. It is also equally true that the detaining authorities are under a constitutionalobligation to furnish reasonably definite grounds as well as adequate particulars contemporaneously with the detention order or within the time specified undersub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act. In the instant case, the subjective satisfactionof the detaining authority as is evident from the detention order itself is based on the dossier, which is admittedly not supplied to the detenu. In the instant case, the subjective satisfactionof the detaining authority as is evident from the detention order itself is based on the dossier, which is admittedly not supplied to the detenu. The facts contained in the dossier have been made use of by the detaining authority for arriving at his subjective satisfaction in passing the impugned order of detention. In these circumstances taking the plea of non-disclosure of facts under Article 22 (6) of the Constitution and 8 (2) of the Act a serious prejudice to the detenu. It is not a question of making available of the dossier or report to the detenu, what is important is the basic facts constituting the grounds of detention which must bemade available to the detenu but when the detaining authority says that the order of detention is based on dossier without making any reference whatsoever to the grounds of detention, naturally the detenu is prejudice in making an effective representation against the detention order. 8 .A basket full of facts contained either in the dossier of the report submitted by the sponsoring authority, in the instant case, the Superintendent of Police of the District, necessarily calls for some application of mind on the part of the detaining authority who has obliged to apply his mind to those basket full of facts, considered the same and culled out grounds of detention which are relevant, proximate in point of time and germane to the object, sought to be achieved by passing the order of preventive detention. This mental process and exercise, as of necessity, has to be gone through by the detaining authority before passing the detention order. It is not the basket full of facts contained in the dossier or report, there might be certain facts which are quite irrelevant and have to be excluded from consideration. The detaining authority on application of mind, from the basket full of facts presented to him is to find out what are those facts or instances which are relevant for the purpose. The detaining authority on application of mind, from the basket full of facts presented to him is to find out what are those facts or instances which are relevant for the purpose. It is like a process of shifting the grain from the chaff, a mental process and exercise which the detaining authority ought to have gone through- It is the respondent's pleaded case that the detenu did not ask for additional documents, it is not for the detenu to ask for additional documents, it is the duty of the detaining authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds of detention, and the grounds as interpreted by the Supreme Court. 9. By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which of the categories of prejudicial acts mentioned in the statute the suspected activity of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the 'grounds'. State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157 10. “Grounds" mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which therefore, the order of detention is based. It is the factual constitutent of the 'grounds' on which the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. Therefore nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. 11. The concept of 'grounds' has to receive an interpretation which will keep it meaningfully in tune with the contemporary notions of the realities of the society and the purpose of the Act in question in the light of concepts of liberty and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 19 (1), 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Prakash Chandra Mehta vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Kerala, 1985 Supp SCC 144. 12. Communication of grounds pre-supposes the formulation of the grounds and formulation of grounds requires and ensures the application of the mind of the detaining authority to the facts and materials before it, that is to say. to pertinent and proximate matters in regard to each individual case and excludes the elements of arbitrariness and automation. Prakash Chandra Mehta vs. Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. to pertinent and proximate matters in regard to each individual case and excludes the elements of arbitrariness and automation. Prakash Chandra Mehta vs. Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Kerala, 1985 Supp SCC 144 : 1985 SCC (Crl) 332. There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds on non-application of mind if a piece of evidence, which was relevant through not binding, had been considered at all. If a piece of evidence which might reasonably have affected the decision whether or not to pass an order of detention is excluded from consideration, there would be a failure of application of mind which, in turn vitiates the detention.. The detaining authority might very well have come to the same conclusion after considering this material; but in the facts of the case the omission to consider the material assumed materiality. Ayya vs. State of UP, (1989) 1 SCC 374 : 1989 SCC (Crl) 153. In Dharmdas Shamlal Agarwal vs. Police Commissioner, (1989) 2 SCC 378 : 1989 SCC (Crl) 378 at the time of passing the detention order, the vital fact regarding acquittal of the detenu in two criminal cases had not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority and on the other hand they were withheld and the detaining authority was given to understand that the trial of those cases were pending. The non-placing of the material facts resulted in non- application of mind of the detaining authority to the said fact which vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order invalid. 13. Now coming to the subjective satisfaction there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability. In a Govt. under law there can be no such thing as unreviewable discretion. Khudi Ram vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) SCC 81 :1975 SCC (Crl) 435. 14. The Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction was arrived at by the authority: if it is not the condition precedent to the exercise of power would not be fulfilled and the exercise of the power would be bad. Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. ML Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367 : 1987 SCC (Crl) 526. 15. On detaining authority's own showing the subjective satisfaction is not based on any ground, but on the dossier which has admittedly not been supplied and there is absolutely no mention in Annexure B that disclosure of certain facts was not in public interest. Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. ML Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367 : 1987 SCC (Crl) 526. 15. On detaining authority's own showing the subjective satisfaction is not based on any ground, but on the dossier which has admittedly not been supplied and there is absolutely no mention in Annexure B that disclosure of certain facts was not in public interest. If Annexure B is taken and treated as grounds of detention which the detention order itself belies, yet taking Annexure B as the grounds of detention, the basic facts constituting these grounds have also not been supplied to the detenu and the plea advanced is there was no request for it, it is not a question of request to be made by the detenu, it is the obligation of the detaining authority to supply all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention, as held by the Supreme Court in Khudi Ram (supra). 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order is liable to beset aside, it is accordingly set aside. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith withoutany loss of time unless he is otherwise wanted in some other case or cases.