Judgment :- Prayer:- HCP No.1346/05:- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.12.2005 in Cr.M.P. No.24/G/2005/E4 detaining Mohanram son of Jagadeesan aged about 27 years as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 82, set aside the same, direct the respondent to produce the body of the said detenu, now lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty. HCP No.1348/05:- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.12.2005 in Cr.M.P. No.22/G/2005/E4 detaining Senthil son of Arjunan aged about 30 years as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 82, set aside the same, direct the respondent to produce the body of the said detenu, now lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty. Common Order: (P. Sathasivam, J.) The impugned orders of detention dated 01.12.2005, detaining one Mohanram and Senthil as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, are challenged in these Habeas Corpus Petitions by their respective mothers. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the foremost, submitted that though the detention order passed in respect of a co-accused was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board, dated 13.01.2006, the said document/advice, being vital one, has not been placed before the Government when confirmation order was passed on 18.01.2006. He further submitted that since the detention orders have been passed on the basis of the very same ground case occurrence, the suggestion of the Advisory Board to revoke the detention order passed against a co-accused will have a bearing on the detenus in these cases, hence, the said suggestion/advice ought to have been placed before the Government. He also claimed that had it been placed before the Government, there would have been every possibility of passing similar orders and not confirming the orders passed by the Detaining Authority. 4. He also claimed that had it been placed before the Government, there would have been every possibility of passing similar orders and not confirming the orders passed by the Detaining Authority. 4. In support of the above contention, he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in HCP No.484 of 2004, dated 14.09.2004. In that decision, the Division Bench has observed that where the ground case is the same in respect of several detenus, how the case of a co-detenu is considered subsequently by the A dvisory Board or even the Court, is a relevant circumstance, which the State Government is required to consider at the subsequent stage of confirmation. The Bench further held that such release is a relevant factor which should be considered by the State Government and non-consideration of such relevant factor would vitiate the order of confirmation. The same Bench also reiterated the said view in HCP No.762 of 2004, dated 08.10.2004. 5. As against the above claim, learned Government Advocate contended that the decision taken by the Advisory Board in respect of a codetenu is not required to be placed before the Government since it depends upon various factors including involvement, activities etc. of the individual concerned. 6. In Safiya v. Govt. of Kerala (2004 SCC (Cri) 920), the Supreme Court has held that subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority cannot be said to have vitiated on the ground that non-placement of opinion of Advisory Board rendered in case of another person (whose detention was revoked) amounted to non-placing of relevant and important document. The following conclusion in para No.10 is relevant and the same is extracted here-under, “In our opinion, the revocation of the detention order issued against Mohammed Mustaffa has no relevance as far as the detenu T.P. Moideen Koya is concerned. The detenu was personally heard by the Advisory Board. After hearing the detenu and perusing the records, the Advisory Board opined that there were sufficient grounds for the detention of the detenu. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the non-placing of the order revoking the detention order of Mohammed Mustaffa before the Advisory Board does not vitiate the detention order issued against the detenu. The detention order was issued after perusing the relevant and material documents and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the authorities. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the non-placing of the order revoking the detention order of Mohammed Mustaffa before the Advisory Board does not vitiate the detention order issued against the detenu. The detention order was issued after perusing the relevant and material documents and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the authorities. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has rejected the said contention, rightly so, in our opinion.� The above decision of the Apex Court in Safiya Vs. State of Kerala was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. In the light of the conclusion of the Supreme Court that non placing of the order/ advice of the Advisory Board in respect of co-detenu does not vitiate the detention order issued against another detenu though both are accused in respect of the same occurrence, the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the above referred cases is applicable to those cases and it cannot be cited as a binding decision. In the light of the said conclusion, we hold that non-placement of opinion of the Advisory Board in respect of a co-detenu before the Government is not fatal and on that ground, the detention order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by pointing out that in the representation, dated 10.12.2005, a specific request was made for furnishing copy of the Report of Identification Parade; would submit that though the said representation was rejected on 27.12.2005, the rejection letter was served on 06.01.2006 and the documents sought for were supplied only on 13.01.2006, that is, after convening of the Advisory Board on 04.01.2006. He also contended that in the absence of copy of the Report of Identification Parade, the detenus were very much prejudiced in making effective representation before the Board. 8. While meeting the said contention, learned Government Advocate contended that the said Report was not relied on by the Detaining Authority, in such circumstances, no prejudice was caused to the detenus. Even otherwise, according to him, as directed by the Government, the said document was supplied. In this regard, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in Subbiah v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City (1993 L.W.Criminal 113). Even otherwise, according to him, as directed by the Government, the said document was supplied. In this regard, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in Subbiah v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City (1993 L.W.Criminal 113). He pressed into service the following conclusion of the Division Bench, “An analysis of the above decisions shows that it is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the detaining authority and consider whether the facts set out in the order of detention were true and whether the materials were sufficient for making the order of detention. The only question to be considered by the Court is whether the materials were relevant for the matters to be decided by the detaining authority and whether they were proximate in time. It is not in dispute that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective one and not an objective one. Hence, if the detention order shows materials to prove the subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority concerned then the Court has to uphold the same.� 9. It is clear from the above decision that it is not for the Court to consider as to whether the facts set out in the order of detention were true and the materials supplied were sufficient for passing the order of detention. If the detention order shows that there are materials and that the Detaining Authority, on consideration of those materials and after arriving at subjective satisfaction, passed the detention order, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court as if it is an appellate court. We are satisfied that the detenus were in no way prejudiced due to non-supply of the Report of Identification Parade prior to their appearance before the Advisory Board. 10. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the mistakes/discrepancies in the grounds of detention, in the absence of proper explanation, the detention orders are liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Learned counsel pointed out that though the accused/detenus were physically produced before the learned Magistrate and their remand was extended then and there, in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that the accused were remanded through video conference. Learned counsel pointed out that though the accused/detenus were physically produced before the learned Magistrate and their remand was extended then and there, in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that the accused were remanded through video conference. We verified the narration of facts in the grounds of detention and the remand orders passed by the learned Magistrate. We are satisfied that the remand orders were passed/ extended on proper satisfaction by the Judicial Magistrate concerned and there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further, we are also satisfied that there is no confusion as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petitions fail and the same are dismissed.