Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 27.5.2010, whereby the father of the petitioner by name T.Marimuthu was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, terming him as a Black Marketeer. 2. All the materials placed and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the grounds of challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely (1) Coimbatore Civil Supplies CID Crime No.55/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and (2) Coimbatore Civil Supplies CID Crime No.55/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and also in a ground case registered by Coimbatore Civil Supplies CID in Crime No.297/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 when he was found in possession of 40 bags of PDS rice each weighing 50 kgs., on 17.5.2010, and he was arrested on the same day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the entire materials, made the order of detention after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, a bail application was filed by the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, in C.M.P.No.1223/2010 in the ground case; that the same came up for orders on 26.5.2010, and it was also dismissed; that the authority even after recording the said factum of dismissal of the said bail application in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that too on the very next day that was on 27.5.2010; and that this observation was only an expression of the impression and that too without any material, much less cogent material. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that though it is mentioned by the authority in paragraph 7 that there are similar cases in which bail was granted by the Courts of criminal jurisdiction, no materials were actually supplied to the detenu. 5. Added further the learned Counsel pointing to paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, that the authority has stated as if he was remanded to judicial custody on 31.5.2010, in Crime No.297/2010; but, the occurrence has actually taken place on 27.5.2010, and he was remanded to judicial custody on the very day, and thus it would be quite indicative of the non-application of mind, and hence the order has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Counsel for the third respondent and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. As stated above, the detaining authority on perusal of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority, has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the public and has passed the order under challenge. It is an admitted position that the detenu has moved a bail application in C.M.P.No.1223/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, and the same was dismissed on 26.5.2010. But the authority even after recording so, has stated in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. This observation was only an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority, and that too, without any material, much less cogent material. That apart, the authority has stated that there were similar cases in which bail was granted by the Courts of criminal jurisdiction. But, it is pertinent to note that no materials were supplied to the detenu. Under the circumstances, the order has become infirm. 8. Apart from the above, it has been mentioned by the authority in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody on 31.5.2010, in Crime No.297/2010. But, from the materials, it could be seen that the occurrence has actually taken place on 17.5.2010, and he was arrested, produced and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. But, from the materials, it could be seen that the occurrence has actually taken place on 17.5.2010, and he was arrested, produced and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. Thus, it would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. Hence, on the above grounds, the order has got to be set aside. 9. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.