Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records in Detention order passed in No. 55/BDFGISV/2005 dated 26-9-2005 on the file of 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam now confined in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. Petitioner, wife of one Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam who was detained as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1952 by the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner of Madurai City dated 26-9-2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents. 3. Mr. C.M. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost, contended that non-placement of affidavit filed on behalf of the detenu even before his remand in H.C.P.No. 254 of 2005 on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which contained very vital materials before the detaining authority, the Advisory Board and the Government at the time of approval and confirmation which is vital for passing of the impugned order. While elaborating the above contention, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, namely, wife of the detenu has filed H.C.P. No. 254/2005 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court praying for a direction to the respondents for production of her husband, namely, Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam before that Court and set him at liberty. It is stated in the affidavit filed in that petition that several false cases have been registered against her husband in various Police Stations, and that the respondents are taking steps to kill her husband through fake encounter. The cases registered against her husband are all foisted. Though her husband was arrested on 31-7-2005, he was not produced before any Court till 10 A.M. on 2-8-2005. Therefore, his detention is illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The cases registered against her husband are all foisted. Though her husband was arrested on 31-7-2005, he was not produced before any Court till 10 A.M. on 2-8-2005. Therefore, his detention is illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. According to the counsel, since the same are vital materials and having bearing on the detention, the sponsoring authority ought to have placed the said affidavit before the detaining authority and also forwarded the same to the Government at the time of approval and confirmation, and failure to do so will vitiate the order of detention. He also relied on a decision in AHMED NASSAR v. STATE OF T.N., reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1469; 2002 SCC (Cri) 648 in support of his contention. However, learned Government Advocate submitted that the detaining authority has taken note of all these aspects as evident from para 3 of the grounds of detention, at the end of which, it has been stated that Thirumathi Muthulakshmi, wife of Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam had sent a telegram on 31-7-2005 to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City (detaining authority) stating that her husband Thiru Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam was illegally arrested and detained in Teppakulam Police party. After referring to the same, particularly the contents of the telegram, the detaining authority has also taken note of the further fact that the investigation disclosed that Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam was arrested on 2-8-2005 in connection with B3 Teppakulam Police Station Crime No. 1232/2005 and produced before J.M.No.I, Madurai and sent for judicial custody on 3-8-2005. He also referred to the fact that in the meanwhile the said Muthulakshmi also filed H.C.P.No. 254/2005 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the same was considered by Honourable Judges of Madurai Bench on 4-8-2005 and disposed of. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, first of all, the affidavit said to have been filed before the Madurai Bench in H.C.P.No.254/2005 has not been relied on before passing the detention order. On the other hand, the detaining authority had taken note of all the relevant materials, namely, the telegram dated 31-7-2005 of the petitioner sent to the detaining authority alleging that her husband was illegally arrested and detained by the police. The same complaint has been made in the said affidavit filed before the Madurai Bench. On the other hand, the detaining authority had taken note of all the relevant materials, namely, the telegram dated 31-7-2005 of the petitioner sent to the detaining authority alleging that her husband was illegally arrested and detained by the police. The same complaint has been made in the said affidavit filed before the Madurai Bench. Inasmuch as the Madurai Bench merely disposed of the said H.C.P with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate the ultimate detention order, the said order was also taken note of by the detaining authority. We are satisfied that even in the absence of placement of affidavit of the petitioner in H.C.P.No. 254/2005, the detaining authority was very well aware of the contents of the same since he considered her telegram and the ultimate order passed by the Madurai Bench. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that failure to place the affidavit filed in H.C.P.No. 254/2005 of Madurai Bench is not fatal to the impugned proceedings. Further, as rightly pointed out, when the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai on 3-8-2005, he has not made any complaint against the police and after recording his statement and after satisfaction, he (J.M) remanded him till 17-8-2005. The said order is available at page 110 of the book let. It is also useful to refer the latest decision of the Supreme Court in J. ABDUL HADEEM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1601. The following principles laid down in para 8 are relevant: "8. The principle of supply of the material documents to the detenu was considered by this Court in the matter of RADHAKRISHNAN PRABHAKARAN v. STATE OF T.N [ (2000) 9 SCC 170 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1198]. In para 8, this Court has said: (SCC p.173) "8. We make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. In para 8, this Court has said: (SCC p.173) "8. We make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him." From the aforesaid authorities it is clear that the detenu has a right to be supplied with the material documents on which reliance is placed by the detaining authority for passing the detention order but the detention order will not be vitiated, if the document although referred to in the order is not supplied which is not relied upon by the detaining authority for forming of its opinion or was made the basis for passing the order of detention. The crux of the matter lies in whether the detenu's right to make a representation against the order of detention is hampered by non-supply of the particular document." It is clear from the above decision that if any document on which reliance is placed by the detaining authority for passing the detention order, the same has to be supplied to the detenu, and in the absence of such supply, the detention order is liable to be vitiated. If it is not relied upon by the detaining authority for forming its opinion, there is no obligation on the part of the detaining authority to supply the said document though referred to in the order of detention. In the light of the above latest pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court and in view of the factual details, namely, mere making of a reference to the telegram of the petitioner and the order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner are not helpful to the facts of the present case. As said earlier, we are of the view that non-placing of affidavit filed in H.C.P.No. 254/2005 is not fatal to the passing of the detention order. 4. As said earlier, we are of the view that non-placing of affidavit filed in H.C.P.No. 254/2005 is not fatal to the passing of the detention order. 4. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the detaining authority relied on the confession of the detenu in the grounds of detention, however, the retraction made by the detenu in his bail application long before the detention was not placed before the detaining authority, Advisory Board and the Government which is also fatal to the proceedings. In support of the above contention, he relied on a decision in A. SOWKATH ALI v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1304. The said decision arose under COFEPOSA Act. In that case, the detaining authority-State Government have taken into consideration of the facts and materials referred to and relied upon in that grounds mentioned and also the statements, mahazars etc., accompanying thereto. In the light of the specific statement in para 4 of the grounds of detention and of the fact that the sponsoring authority has placed the confessional statement which was relied on by the State Government however failed to place the retraction made by the detenu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after finding that since the State Government relied on the confessional statement, it ought to have considered the retraction also, has held that failure to do so vitiates the detention order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, confession under COFEPOSA Act is a relevant material and inasmuch as the detaining authority having relied on the same and in view of the subsequent retraction by the detenu, it is but proper on the part of the sponsoring authority to place the retraction before the detaining authority which in turn ought to have considered the same while passing the detention order. In that context, the consideration of retraction statement is relevant. But in this case, which is under Act 14 of 1982, the detaining authority while narrating the facts, has referred to the confession made by the detenu and based on which certain recoveries were made. In that context, the consideration of retraction statement is relevant. But in this case, which is under Act 14 of 1982, the detaining authority while narrating the facts, has referred to the confession made by the detenu and based on which certain recoveries were made. Further, the perusal of the entire grounds, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the detaining authority has not placed reliance on the confessional statement though made a reference, we are of the view that failure to place the retraction of confession made by the detenu is not fatal to passing of the detention order. Inasmuch as the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner arose under COFEPOSA Act and in view of the fact that the case on hand relates to Act 14/1982, the said decision is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though vital materials have been asked for the purpose of making effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government, though were not furnished in spite of request, we verified the materials supplied to the detenu. We are satisfied that all relevant materials relied on by the detaining authority have been furnished to the detenu and the contrary argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to a decision in M. AHAMEDKUTTY v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, contended that "considered documents" would be a relied on document, hence the detaining authority ought to have supplied the same. Elaborating the above argument, he heavily relied on para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority-Commissioner of Police, Madurai City wherein it is stated that while passing the detention order, the detaining authority has considered the order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in H.C.P.No. 254/2005. According to the counsel, inasmuch as the detaining authority himself has specifically stated that he had considered the order of the Madurai Bench, the sponsoring authority ought to have placed the affidavit filed in support of the said petition before the detaining authority. In the earlier part of our order, we have already considered the said authority. According to the counsel, inasmuch as the detaining authority himself has specifically stated that he had considered the order of the Madurai Bench, the sponsoring authority ought to have placed the affidavit filed in support of the said petition before the detaining authority. In the earlier part of our order, we have already considered the said authority. As a matter of fact, the sponsoring authority has forwarded to the detaining authority a copy of the order of Madurai Bench in H.C.P.No.254/2005 and the latter after consideration of the same, and taking note of the materials, has passed the detention order. It is true that in the Ahamed Kutty's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the facts in that case came to the conclusion that the bail application and the bail order were vital materials and held that if those were not considered, the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. In this regard, it would be useful to refer a decision of Supreme Court in ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MAIK v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 1 wherein Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the dictum laid down in Ahamed Kutty's case. In Ahamedkutty's case the Division Bench made those observations while considering the contention that the order granting bail and the bail application, though referred to, were not relied upon. In Ahamedkutty's case the Division Bench made those observations while considering the contention that the order granting bail and the bail application, though referred to, were not relied upon. With reference to the observation made therein, it was specifically held that "it is not laid down clearly as a principle that in all cases non-consideration of the bail application and the order refusing bail would automatically affect the detention..." After referring to the observation in the Ahamedkutty's case, finally Their Lordships have held: "8.....We are satisfied that the above observations made by the Division Bench of this Court do not lay down such legal principle in general and a careful examination of the entire discussion would go to show that these observations were made while rejecting the contention that the bail application and the order granting bail though referred to in the grounds were not relied upon and therefore need not be supplied. The case is distinguishable for the reason that the Division Bench has particularly taken care to mention that "Considering the facts...the bail application and the bail order were vital materials". In that view these observations were made. Further that was a case where the detenu was released on bail and was not in custody. This was a vital circumstance which the authority had to consider and rely upon before passing the detention order and therefore they had to be supplied." Since in Ahamedkutty's case the detenu was released on bail and was not in custody, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the bail application and bail order were vital materials. While explaining the said position in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik's case, the Supreme Court has held that the decision in Ahamedkutty's case is distinguishable since the bail application and the bail order in that case were vital materials and failure to rely on them is a fatal to the detention, however, when the detenu was in custody and no bail order, neither the bail petition nor the bail order is placed before the detaining authority. In view of the fact that the detaining authority has considered the order of Madurai Bench in H.C.P.No. 254/2005, merely because the affidavit filed in support of the said petition has not been placed before the detaining authority, we are of the view that the same is not a vital material and failure to do so would not affect the detention order. As discussed earlier, the contents of the affidavit in the form of telegram has been placed and relied on by the detaining authority, accordingly, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Finally learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for imminent possibility of release of the detenu, no material is available before the detaining authority and it is only the perception of the detaining authority not supported by material. In support of the above contention, he relied on a judgment in Appeal (Criminal) No. 1176 of 2005 [T.V. SARAVANAN @ S.A.R. PRASANA VENKATACHAARIAR CHATURVEDI v. STATE) dated 16-02-2006. Paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention speaks about imminent possibility which makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware that the detenu Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam is in remand in B-3 Teppakulam Police Station Crime No. 1232/2005 and that he has moved bail application before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No. 5252/2005 and the same was dismissed on 20-9-2005. It further shows that awareness was shown that by filing bail application and on the orders of the Court, there is possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail and in that event, he will indulge in similar activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and based on the same passed the detention order. It is brought to our notice that though the detenu has involved in 4 adverse cases which are graver in nature, it is stated that in the third adverse case final report has been filed and there is no difficulty in getting an order of bail. In other cases also including the ground case, if the charge sheet is filed, there is imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail. Like-wise, after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days, the detenu is likely to be released on bail. In other cases also including the ground case, if the charge sheet is filed, there is imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail. Like-wise, after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days, the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that though in Chadurvedi's case a reference was made that six adverse cases and bail applications were dismissed in those cases, in fact, according to him, bail was granted in those cases and this vital information was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A statement was also made by the Government Advocate that in order to point out this important factual aspect, the State is contemplating filing of Review Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of the factual information furnished by the learned Government Advocate and in view of the statement of fact referred to in para 5, we are satisfied that the detaining authority had shown awareness of imminent possibility and we do not find any flaw in his approach. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference; accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.