A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE District Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed order dated 8/08/1999 detaining the petitioner under the provision of section 3[2] of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as `the PBM Act for short]. ( 2 ) IN the grounds of detention, the detaining authority recorded that the petitioner in association with others had engaged in activities which were capable of disrupting supply of essential commodities like kerosene. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he has made illegal use of the controlled blue kerosene. The license is issued to the Ahmedabad Kerosene and Oil Supply cooperative Society Ltd. , the petitioner is the Manager thereof and he has continued these illegalities for personal gain. After considering the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedy, the authority came to a conclusion that, in order to immediately prevent the petitioner from pursuing his illegal activities, detention under the PBM Act has been resorted to. ( 3 ) THE main grounds of challenge in this petition are that the detaining authority has not considered the fact of pending prosecution in respect of the same incident. It is contended that material documents have not been placed by the sponsoring before the detaining authority and therefore, the decision taken by the detaining authority is affected and would, therefore, stand vitiated. Another ground that has been taken, is regarding delay in considering the representation dated 8/09/1999 and last ground is that certain documents which are supplied to the detenue, are not legible. ( 4 ) MR. Ahuja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the above grounds and restricted his arguments only to these grounds. He pressed into service the decision in the case of Mehrunissa v/s State of Maharashtra [ air 1981 SC 1861 ] and submitted that non supply of relevant documents would infringe the right of the detenue of making an effective representation. He has drawn attention of the Court to the affidavit in reply wherein the detaining authority has also accepted the fact that certain documents are not legible. He submitted further that the authority has stated in the affidavit that it could not have known about any criminal complaint filed in the matter in respect of 8,000 ltrs. of kerosene in question. He submitted further that the authority has stated in the affidavit that it could not have known about any criminal complaint filed in the matter in respect of 8,000 ltrs. of kerosene in question. He submitted that the sponsoring authority had placed before the detaining authority affidavit of the driver and cleaner of the tanker who have stated that, after they were intercepted, police recorded their statements, took them in custody, ill-treated them and ultimately, they were bailed out. They say that initially they had stated before the police that, under the direction of one Shaileshbhai, they were taking the kerosene and subsequent in the affidavit, they have implicated the present petitioner. The affidavit, if it was considered by the detaining authority in proper perspective, the authority would have definitely known that some criminal proceedings are initiated in respect of this very incident. Mr. Ahuja, therefore, submitted that there is non-application of mind in this regard. He submitted that the petition may, therefore, be allowed and the detenue may be directed to be set at liberty. ( 5 ) MR. D. P. JOSHI, learned AGP appearing for the respondents authorities has opposed this petition. He submitted that the documents which are said to be illegible are illegible in original and therefore, the authority could not have helped the detenue with a legible copy. These documents were seized from the detenue himself and therefore, there was no question of supplying a copy of the documents as the contents would be known to the detenue. Mr. Joshi submitted further that the criminal complaint is not the foundation for detention of the detenue and therefore, there was no need for the detaining authority to furnish material relating to the criminal case. He submitted that the petition may, therefore, be dismissed. ( 6 ) IT is now a settled proposition of law that the detaining authority is expected to supply all the relevant documents relating to the order of detention. For this purpose, it is not material whether the detenue is aware about these documents or contents thereof. The stand taken therefor by the detaining authority that the documents were seized from the petitioner and he was, therefore, expected to know the contents, cannot be accepted. For this purpose, it is not material whether the detenue is aware about these documents or contents thereof. The stand taken therefor by the detaining authority that the documents were seized from the petitioner and he was, therefore, expected to know the contents, cannot be accepted. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the facts of the decision in the case of Mehrunissa [supra] wherein it has been held that the detenue was entitled to be supplied with copies of all material documents instead of having to rely upon his memory in relation to the contents of the documents. The failure on part of the detaining authority to supply copies of such documents vitiates the detention. In that case, the apex Court relied upon the decisions in the case of Ichhudevi v/s Union of India [ 1984 SCC 531 ] and in the case of Shalini Soni v/s Union of India [ air 1981 SC 431 ], in which this view was taken by the apex Court. In this view of the matter, the authority was expected to supply legible copies of the documents relied upon by it. ( 7 ) IN fact, if the affidavit in reply is seen, the authority says in para 16 that the right of representation of the detenue cannot be said to be vitiated on account of non-supply of copies as the documents were taken from the custody of the detenue as well as other witnesses. The original documents were themselves illegible in certain conditions and therefore, the copies. It was contended further that the copies which are given to the detenue are not made by the detaining authority, but they are the copies of the originals and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the detenue by supplying of certain documents which are alleged to be illegible. The authority says that, on the contrary, certain documents had created problems for the detaining authority in reading the said documents which were seized either from the custody of the detenue or from the witnesses and hence, the same had been explained by the detenue and other detenues to the detaining authority and therefore, the detenues themselves are knowing about the grounds of detention and the contents of the documents which are supplied to them. The present case, therefore, is quite similar to the case of Mehrunissa [supra] wherein reliance was placed on the fact that the detenue was aware about the contents of the documents. Here also, the detaining authority has relied upon this aspect of the case. The non-supply of legible documents has, therefore, deprived the petitioner of his right of making an effective representation. The detention, therefore, would be vitiated. ( 8 ) AS regards the other point that the fact of pending prosecution in respect of this very incident, has not been considered by the detaining authority and therefore, there is non-application of mind, also needs consideration. If para 13 of the affidavit in reply is seen, the authority says,"i hereby say and submit that the filing of the criminal complaint before the Kalol police station or at any other police station is a job done by the District Supply Officer, Mehsana. That as I have stated earlier that in the grounds of detention, I have not mentioned the reference to any criminal complaint being filed that is because I was absolutely unaware about the fact and the papers which were placed before me do not disclose the same. In a quixotic dreams, I cannot gather the facts without having any material on record that any criminal complaint is filed by the officer, who had intercepted the tanker containing 8,000 ltrs. of kerosene. "the above averment indicates that the sponsoring authority has not placed the papers relating to criminal complaint before the detaining authority which were very material and relevant as they relate to the very incident. They become more important for another reason that, during the course of investigation, the driver and conductor of the tanker concerned had implicated Shaileshbhai and on a subsequent affidavit [which forms part of papers supplied to detenue and by necessary implication of the detaining authority], has implicated the present detenue. Therefore, the detaining authority, if it had considered the affidavit placed before it, it would have known that some criminal proceedings are initiated in respect of this incident, because, the driver in the affidavit states about the interception of the truck by the police, being taken in custody, being ill-treated by the police and being bailed out. Therefore, the detaining authority, if it had considered the affidavit placed before it, it would have known that some criminal proceedings are initiated in respect of this incident, because, the driver in the affidavit states about the interception of the truck by the police, being taken in custody, being ill-treated by the police and being bailed out. It indicates that some case was prepared by the police implicating Shaileshbhai Jain in this regard and then, the driver says that he has not implicated Shaileshbhai Jain, but he signed certain papers under pressure. Had the detaining authority read this affidavit in proper perspective, it would have definitely known that some criminal proceedings are initiated in respect of the same incident and which in turn implicate one Shaileshbhai Jain and not the detenue and it is the changed version of the driver of the tanker that implicates the present detenue and the authority therefore, it appears, has not considered those documents which are the basis of proceedings against the detenue and which is also supplied to the detenue, while detaining him. ( 9 ) NON-PLACEMENT of material documents before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority, namely, the documents relating to criminal proceedings in respect of the same incident, can be said could have affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The possibility of the detaining authority taking another view after considering these papers relating to criminal proceedings against Shaileshbhai Jain cannot be ruled out and therefore, the order of detention passed in absence of consideration to the papers relating to criminal proceedings would stand vitiated. ( 10 ) ON all above grounds, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The detenue Pramodkumar Kanchedilal Jain is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. .