Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Manoharan, who has been detained under the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a "Sand Offender". The said order of detention, dated 12.02.2007, passed by the second respondent is challenged in this habeas corpus petition. 2. The detention order has been clamped on the petitioners son based on the following materials as found in the grounds of detention. "3. .... On 27-01-2007, early morning, the Inspector of Police, Alangudi P.S. along with his police party while conducting night rounds, received an information from the superior officers stating that the police party should also be kept surveillance to detect the illicit mining and transportation of sand from the river beds. Hence the police party rushed to Sammattividuthi diversion road and then proceeded to Karambakkudi to Pudukkottai Road, found a tractor bearing Registration No.TN 50 -A 5112 and a tipper loaded with full of sand was standing near Sammattividuthi diversion road. On examination of the tipper of the tractor found full of sand. Hence the Inspector of Police interrogated the driver Manoharan about the mining and transportation of sand. He has stated that he is transporting the sand to the building contractors and selling open market for the past 1 year and now also he is transporting the same for the sale to the building contractors. He has no valid permit or license from the Government. He also gave a confession statement about the commission of offence committed by him. In his statement he has stated that he illicitly mined from Agni River. Hence Inspector of Police, Alangudi arrested the accused, seized the trailer and tipper along with the sand under a cover of mahazar attested by police as no general public come forward to sign in the mahazar. The reason for the arrest was informed to him and all matters relating to his arrest was also informed to his relative. He was brought to station, registered a case in Alangudi P.S. Cr.No.29/2007 u/s 379 IPC r/w 21(1)(a)(b) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Regulation) Act, 1957. he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Alangudi for remand. The reason for the arrest was informed to him and all matters relating to his arrest was also informed to his relative. He was brought to station, registered a case in Alangudi P.S. Cr.No.29/2007 u/s 379 IPC r/w 21(1)(a)(b) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Regulation) Act, 1957. he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Alangudi for remand. As ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, he was remanded and lodged at the District Prison, Pudukkottai till 09.02.2007. The remand has been further extended upto 23-02-2007. He has moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, which was dismissed vide C.M.P.No.304/07, dated 03-02-2007. The case is under investigation." 3. The learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that on 05.02.2007 a bail application was filed in Cr.M.P.No.366/2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, on behalf of the detenu seeking bail. The said application was ordered on 13.02.2007. However, on the date when the detention order was passed, namely 12.02.2007, the said application was pending. The detaining authority had not applied his mind as to the pendency of the said bail application. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the fact that the pendency of the bail application has relevance in the wake of the allegations made in the petition, namely that when a special enactment has been invoked to deal with the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu, invoking general provisions of the Indian Penal Court is meaningless and therefore the police officer has no competence to deal with the cases punishable under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation) Act, 1957 or the State Regulations. He would also contend that in fact, accepting the same, the Public Prosecutor had conceded for the grant of bail and submitted before the learned Principal Sessions Judge that he has no objection. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel produced a copy of the bail order dated 13.02.2007. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that had this application for bail was placed before the detaining authority, he could not have satisfied himself to pass the impugned order of detention. 4. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel produced a copy of the bail order dated 13.02.2007. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that had this application for bail was placed before the detaining authority, he could not have satisfied himself to pass the impugned order of detention. 4. Thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor however submitted that in the absence of the knowledge on the part of the detaining authority as to the pendency of the bail application, the detention order cannot be questioned on the ground of non-application of mind to the said fact. 5. Wehave carefully considered the above rival submissions. 6. We must firstly state the law on this point. It is well settled in law that the detaining authority is bound to consider all the relevant materials placed before him, before arriving satisfaction to pass an order of detention. There may be materials which may be merely referred to by the detaining authority and there may be some materials which may be actually relied upon by the detaining authority to pass the detention order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the question whether the bail application said to have been filed by the detenu before the learned Principal Sessions Judge on 05.02.2007 could be treated as a document relied upon or referred to. Factually, the detaining authority could satisfactorily explain that in the absence of knowledge as to the pendency of bail application dated 05.02.2007 naturally he could not have applied his mind to the said pendency of bail application. It is not the case of the petitioner that inspite of the sponsoring authority forwarded the bail application, the detaining authority has not considered the same and applied his mind. In fact, it is the case of the respondents as well that the pendency of bail application was not within the knowledge of the detaining authority. In such circumstances, the question of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the pendency of the bail application on the date when the detention order was passed cannot be accepted and consequently the detention order cannot be set aside on that ground. 7. However, the question does not end there. In such circumstances, the question of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the pendency of the bail application on the date when the detention order was passed cannot be accepted and consequently the detention order cannot be set aside on that ground. 7. However, the question does not end there. It is equally well settled in law that while the sponsoring authority sponsors for detention of a person to the detaining authority, it should place all the materials available before it to the detaining authority to enable the detaining authority to apply its mind with regard to those materials. In case, if the sponsoring authority within whose knowledge certain materials were available had not forwarded the same to the detaining authority the order of detention would also get vitiated on the ground that the sponsoring authority has not placed all the relevant materials before the detaining authority. 8. On the above broad principles, the facts of the case should be looked into. It is the specific case of the petitioner that a bail application was filed on 05.02.2007 and the same was disposed of on 13.02.2007 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and the said application was disposed of after hearing the Public Prosecutor. A copy of the order granting bail dated 13.02.2007 was placed before us. In the above facts, it could reasonably be presumed that the pendency of the bail application filed by the on behalf of the detenu on 05.02.2007 was well within the knowledge of the sponsoring authority. Even, in case, the respondent police in the bail application was represented by Public Prosecutor, the burden is on the detenu to establish that the respondent police had actual knowledge of the pendency of the bail application. But, that also depends upon the facts of each case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents before us, in all fairness submitted that in all probabilities it could be presumed that the appearance of the Public Prosecutor before the Principal Sessions Judge was on instruction from the respondent police. But, that also depends upon the facts of each case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents before us, in all fairness submitted that in all probabilities it could be presumed that the appearance of the Public Prosecutor before the Principal Sessions Judge was on instruction from the respondent police. In that case, when the sponsoring authority had sworn to the affidavit on 10.02.2007, not only he would have knowledge of the pendency of the bail application, the non-furnishing of the said material to the detaining authority would certainly amount to either suppressing or withholding materials from the consideration of the same by the detaining authority. On this ground the petitioner has to succeed. 9. The non-supply of this material to the detaining authority assumes importance in this case, more particularly when the offences alleged are to be taken cognizance by the authorities empowered under the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act) and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In fact, a question as to whether a police officer could exercise his power under the above enactments whenever a violation of illegal quarrying of mining is noticed came up for consideration in the judgment reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 -D. Sudharshan v. State and this Court has held that when special enactment has been invoked to deal with such offences, invoking general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be meaningless and the special enactment will override the general provisions of law and specific provision will override the other provisions. 10. Probably the case should have taken cognizance by the police and therefore the learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, should have submitted that there was no objection for granting bail to the detenu. Had this material was placed before the detaining authority, i.e. a ground for seeking bail, it could have weighed in the mind of the detaining authority, either way, before passing the order of detention. In the circumstances, non-placement of this material before the detaining authority would certainly infringe the right of the detenu for a detailed consideration on the part of the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. Hence for all the above reasons, we find merit in the above contention made on behalf of the petitioner. 11. In the circumstances, non-placement of this material before the detaining authority would certainly infringe the right of the detenu for a detailed consideration on the part of the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. Hence for all the above reasons, we find merit in the above contention made on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 12.02.2007 passed by the second respondent in P.D.O.No.5/2007 is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.