Judgment M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent made in C.M.P.No.3/2009(CS) dated 20.2.2009 whereby husband of the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Black Marketeer". 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.36/2009 for the incident that took place on 12. 2009 as stated in the detention order. In the incident that took place on 12. 2009, he was found in illegal possession of 32 bags of Public Distribution System Rice. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case, after scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public distribution and that he should be detained as a "Black Marketeer" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court, the following two grounds:- (i) In the ground case in Crime No.36/2009, bail application was filed and was dismissed on 12. 2009. When the order of detention came to be passed there was no bail application pending before any Court of criminal law but the order of detention would read simply that "If Thiru.Deivendran is let to remain at large again he will indulge in such activities in future, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, continuously." This observation made in the order without any material or basis. In order to pass an order of detention, the detaining authority should have materials to come to such a conclusion and it should impel the detaining authority to make such order and hence, the order is defective and it has got to be set aside. (ii) On 12. In order to pass an order of detention, the detaining authority should have materials to come to such a conclusion and it should impel the detaining authority to make such order and hence, the order is defective and it has got to be set aside. (ii) On 12. 2009, the detenu was actually transporting and when intercepted, he was found to be in possession of 32 Bags of PDS rice. The case of the respondent police is that samples were taken and that was also sent to analysis for the purpose of confirmation of the quality of the rice. A perusal of the quality certificate issued in respect of one adverse case, which is found at page No.32 of the booklet confirms that the sample rice confirms to PDS Rice.However, a perusal of the quality certificate issued in respect of the ground case in Crime No.36/2008, which is found at page No.32 of the booklet does not indicate that the sample rice confirms to PDS Rice. Thus, the order under challenge is without any material or basis. On this ground also, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. According to the State, the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.36/2008 registered by Civil Supplies CID under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act 1955 and that on 12. 2009, he was found to be in possession of 32 Bags of PDS Rice and samples were taken and sent for analysis and on analysis, it was confirmed that it was actually the rice ear-marked for the public distribution system. The learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court in respect of one adverse case, the quality certificate issued at page 32, where it was confirmed by the authority that the rice was ear-marked for public distribution system. Insofar as the ground case in Crime No.36/2008 is concerned, the learned counsel took the Court to page 65 of the booklet, which contains quality certificate, but no where it is stated as to the confirmation by the analyst that the rice was meant for public distribution system in the quality certificate. Insofar as the ground case in Crime No.36/2008 is concerned, the learned counsel took the Court to page 65 of the booklet, which contains quality certificate, but no where it is stated as to the confirmation by the analyst that the rice was meant for public distribution system in the quality certificate. Contrarily, it is found in the order at page 4 that" as per the quality certificate issued by the quality Inspector, the seized rice was confirmed as rice ear-marked for the Public Distribution System. The case is under investigation.". Thus, it is without any material or basis and the order of detention has got to be set aside on this ground. 7. Apart from that, it is not in controversy that bail application in Crl.M.P.No.843/2009 filed in the ground case in Crime No.36/2008 was dismissed on 12. 2009. But, Paragraph 5 of the order of detention would read as "if Thiru.Deivendran is let to remain at large again he will indulge in such activities in future which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, continuously." Thus, the observation made in the order of detention is without any material or basis and prejudging the situation. On this ground also, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.