JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:-----Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenu has impugned the detention Order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. Sudhakar Ambedkar, Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981). The detention Order dated 12-10-1998 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 13-10-1998. The true copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition. 2.A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the detention order is based on three C. Rs. which have been filed against the petitioner - detenu at Rabale Police Station namely :- (a) C.R. No. 284 of 1998 registered under section 147, 148, 384, 452 and 149 I.P.C. and sections 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 11-7-98; (b) C.R. No. 321 of 1998 registered under sections 395/397 I.P.C. and section 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 11-8-98; and (c) C.R. No. 327 of 1998 registered under section 399 I.P.C. and sections 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 19-8-98. 3.We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The legal contention canvassed by Mr. U.N. Tripathi is contained in ground No. 5(F) of the petition. In the said ground, he has mentioned that although in para 3(b) of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that the identification parade was held in C.R. No. 284 of 1998, which took place in Thane Central Prison but, the report of the Identification Parade which was a vital document was neither placed before the Detaining Authority nor furnished to the detenu. Mr. Tripathi urged that although he has not specifically pleaded but, the same is the position in respect of C.R. No. 321 of 1998. In Mr. Mr. Tripathi urged that although he has not specifically pleaded but, the same is the position in respect of C.R. No. 321 of 1998. In Mr. Tripathi's submission failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place before the Detaining Authority, copies of the identification parade reports, in C.R. No. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 has vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority because, the said reports were a vital document and could have influenced his subjective satisfaction. Mr. Tripathi also contended that since it was a vital document, it should have been supplied by the Detaining Authority to the petitioner-detenu and the failure to do so, has impaired the right of the petitioner-detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4.Ground No. 5(F) has ben replied in two returns namely those filed by the Detaining Authority on 28-6-1998 and 2-7-1999 respectively. A three-fold reply to the said ground has been furnished in the two returns namely : (1) The Sponsoring Authority approached the proper authority to obtain the Identification Parade reports, but, the same could not be obtained; (ii) A reference to the Identification Parade in the grounds of detention has been made to complete the narration of facts and reports of the Identification parade were not vital documents and (iii) Even had the reports of the Identification Parades been placed before him, his subjective satisfaction would have remained the same. To substantiate (i), Mr. Rajiv Patil invited our attention to a letter dated 17-10-1998 sent by P.S.I. of Rabale Police Station to the Sr. P.I. of the same Police Station wherein it has been mentioned that he tried to obtain a copy of the report of the Identification Parade in C.R. No. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 from the Special Executive Magistrate, Bhiwandi but, the Special Executive Magistrate informed him that the reports of the Identification Parade have been forwarded in a sealed cover to the Court and expressed his inability to supply the same to him. This is borne out from the document at page 265 of the compilation. We have examined the said reply and we are constrained to observe that we are not prepared to accept it. This is borne out from the document at page 265 of the compilation. We have examined the said reply and we are constrained to observe that we are not prepared to accept it. In our view, once the Sponsoring Authority was informed that the reports of the Identification parades were in the Court, the proper course for it should have been to make an application to the Court. This admittedly it did not do. It is our common experience that pending trial, certified copies of the reports of the Identification Parades are supplied by the concerned Court on an application being made to it stating therein the purpose for which they are being wanted. The Sponsoring Authority should have been more vigilant and if it has chosen not to be vigilant, it has to suffer the consequences of its complacency or over sight. 5.It should always be remembered that eternal vigilance is the price which the law expects from the Sponsoring and Detaining Authorities if they want a preventive detention order to be sustained by this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. If they chosen to be lax, it is they who have to suffer the consequences. In their laxity, lies the liberty of the detenu. 6.We are not impressed with the averment (ii) contained in the returns of the Detaining Authority namely that reference to Identification Parades in C.R. No. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 was only for the purpose of completing the narration of facts and the reports of the Identification Parades in the said C. Rs. were not vital documents. In our view, the said C. Rs. were vital documents because they constitute two of the grounds on which, the impugned detention order is founded. And once, it is held that the said C. Rs. are vital documents the reports of the Identification Parades of the said C. Rs. as a logical imperative would also become a vital document. 7.We are also not impressed by averment (iii) in the returns of the Detaining Authority namely that even had the reports of the Identification Parades of the said two C. Rs. been placed before him, his subjective satisfaction would have remained the same. as a logical imperative would also become a vital document. 7.We are also not impressed by averment (iii) in the returns of the Detaining Authority namely that even had the reports of the Identification Parades of the said two C. Rs. been placed before him, his subjective satisfaction would have remained the same. In this connection, we feel it pertinent to advert to two decisions of the Supreme Court namely those reported in 1989(1) S.C.C. 374 (Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. and another)1, and A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 208 (State of U.P. Appellant v. Kamal Kishore Saini, Respondent)2. In the former case, the petitioner's contention was that since he had been taken into custody earlier than 8 p.m. he could not be present at the scene of occurrence at 9.10 p.m. at which time the occurrence took place. A telegram had been sent on behalf of the petitioner. The Supreme Court observed in para 27 that it was extremely probable that telegram was not sent at 12.30 midnight on 18-2-1988 but, at 12.30 in the afternoon on 19-2-1988 as alleged by the respondents but, inspite of that it observed in para 28 thus :- "What weight the contents and assertions in the telegram should carry is an altogether a different matter. It is not disputed that the telegram was not placed before and considered by the detaining authority. There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non-application of mind if a piece of evidence, which was relevant though not binding, had not 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. 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 assumes materiality." In the latter case, as is evident from para 7, an application of the co-accused as well as statement made in the bail application filed on behalf of the detenus alleging that they had been falsely implicated in the same case and the police report thereon, were not produced before the Detaining Authority before passing of the detention order, and what was asserted on behalf of the Detaining Authority was that even if the said material had been placed, he would not have changed his subjective satisfaction. Repelling the said submission, the Supreme Court observed thus :- "It is incumbent to place all the vital materials before the detaining authority to enable him to come to a subjective satisfaction as to the passing of the order of detention as mandatorily required under the Act. This finding of the High Court is quite in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of (Asha Devi v. K. Shivraj)3, 1979(1) S.C.C. 222 and (Gurdip Singh v. Union of India)4, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 362. 8.In our view, the reports of the Identification Parades of C.R. Nos. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 were vital documents and their non-placement by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority has vitiated the impugned detention order on the vice of non-application of mind. Since they were the vital documents, they should have been supplied to the petitioner-detenu by the Detaining Authority and the failure on its part to do so, has impaired the right of the petitioner-detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India. 9.We would be falling in our fairness, if we do not refer to the contentions of Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor that at the most, as a consequence of the non-placement of the result of the Identification Parades in the said two C. Rs. 9.We would be falling in our fairness, if we do not refer to the contentions of Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor that at the most, as a consequence of the non-placement of the result of the Identification Parades in the said two C. Rs. only two of the grounds of detention would fall and the third ground which is contained in C.R. No. 327 of 1998 would still remain. In our view, it is not the question of two grounds failing and the third ground remaining intact. It is a question of subjective satisfaction. Since the satisfaction is subjective, it may be that had the result of the Identification Parades of the said two C. Rs. been placed before the Detaining Authority, he may not have decided to preventively detain the detenu. Since it is a matter of subjective satisfaction, we cannot speculate. For the said reasons, we reject this submission of Mr. Patil. 10.We would be once more failing in our fairness, if we do not mention that in ground No. 5(F), there is no reference to C.R. No. 321 of 1998. It should be borne in mind that the law of pleadings does not strictly apply to writ petitions impugning preventive detention orders. In this connection, reference may be made to para 2 of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court page 1126 (Harish Pahwa, appellant v. State of U.P. and others respondents)5 wherein it has been conserved thus:- "The only point that has been raised before us by Mr. Garg appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the representation made by him against his detention to the State Government was not decided within a reasonable time and that the delay is fatal to the detention. Garg appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the representation made by him against his detention to the State Government was not decided within a reasonable time and that the delay is fatal to the detention. This point was no doubt not taken before the High Court, but in view of its importance and the fact that all the material necessary for its determination is available on record, we have allowed it to be raised before us and have overruled a preliminary objection taken by the State to the effect that it should not be entertained." Since the returns of Detaining Authority show that the report of the Identification Parade of C.R. No. 321/98 was not forwarded to the Detaining Authority nor supplied to the detenu, we have allowed the petitioner's Counsel to canvass the submission in respect of the said C.R. also. 11.For the said reasons, we allow this writ petition; quash the impugned detention order and direct that the petitioner-detenu be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----