Judgment :- M. Sathyanaryanan, J. 1. The daughter of the detenue is the Petitioner and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.10.2010, passed by the third respondent under which, the detenue has been branded as a “Blackmarketeer” and detained under the provisions of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980). 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 14.10.2010, the detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:- 1. Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit Crime No.486/2009, for the commission of the offence under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence said to have taken place on 16.07.2007 at 5.45 hours. 2. Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit Crime No.631/2010, for the commission of the offence under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence said to have taken place on 25.08.2010 at 12.00 hours. 3. Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit Crime No.684/2010, for the commission of the offence under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence said to have taken place on 14.09.2010 at 16.00 hours. 3. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenue was also involved in the alleged commission of the offences, which said to have taken place on 02.10.2010 at 13.00 hours and in this regard, the Sponsoring Authority, namely the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit has registered a case in Crime No.721/2010 for offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 307 and 353 of IPC. After observing all the formalities, the Inspector of Police produced the detenue before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruvallur and remanded her to judicial custody till 16.10.2010. As the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority, clamped the order of detention. 4. As the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority, clamped the order of detention. 4. Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention and would submit that, though it is stated in the said paragraph that the detenu has filed an application for bail in Crl.M.P.No.1866/2010 in the ground case and the same is pending, no material has been made available in the booklet and in the absence of such a material, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said bail application is vitiated. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the same paragraph, it has been stated that the detenue has already been enlarged on bail in all the adverse cases. But the fact remains that she was arrested in the third adverse case in Crime No.684/2010 registered by the sponsoring authority on 02.02.2010, the date on which the detenue was arrested in the ground case. Even though the said material is available in page No.59 of the booklet, the Sponsoring Authority has not applied his mind to the said material and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and would indulge in further/future activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is vitiated and hence the learned counsel prayed for the quashment of the impugned order of detention. 6. On the said submission, we heard Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.M.Gopikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also perused the booklet. 7. A perusal of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention would disclose that the Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the ground case by placing reliance on the bail application filed by the detenue in Crl.M.P.No.1866/2010. 7. A perusal of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention would disclose that the Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the ground case by placing reliance on the bail application filed by the detenue in Crl.M.P.No.1866/2010. A perusal of the booklet would disclose that the copy of the said bail application has been made available before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority and even in the said report there is no mention as to the filing of the said application by the detenue. In the absence of such a material, we fail to understand as to how the Detaining Authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail. That apart, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration that the detenue has already been enlarged on bail in all the adverse cases. But the fact remains that, the detenue was taken into custody on 02.02.2010 in the third adverse case, i.e the date on which she was arrested in the ground case. A perusal of page No.59 of the booklet would disclose that the said material of arrest of the detenue in the third adverse case has been placed before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority and however, the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration the said document and merely stated that the detenue has been enlarged on bail in all the three adverse cases and the same would indicate non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as to the said material document. In the considered opinion of this court, the above said infirmities would definitely vitiate the order of detention and therefore the Order of Detention is liable to be set aside for the above said reasons. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.3/2010 dated 14.10.2010 is quashed. The detenue Tmt.Vasantha, wife of Sivalingam, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless her detention/custody is required in connection with any other case or proceedings.