JUDGMENT A. S. OKA, J. :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondent-State. 2. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to an order of preventive detention passed in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous persons Video pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant invited our attention to paragraph no. 12 of grounds of detention served upon the Petitioner-Detenu. He pointed out that in the said ground, the detaining authority has set out the numbers of the First Information Reports, the Sections under which the First Information Reports have been registered and the names of the police stations at which the same have been registered. He submitted that paragraph 12 is one of the grounds for detention. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was influenced by offences which have been set out in the said paragraph. He urged that the detaining authority has not set out the relevant facts constituting the offences set out in paragraph 12 which have been taken into consideration by the said authority for passing the impugned order of detention. He urged that it cannot be denied that the order of detention is based on the First Information Reports set out in the said paragraph. He urged that as a result of the failure to set out the basic facts and materials, the Petitioner-Detenu was prevented from making an effective representation in accordance with Clause 5 of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He also invited our attention to the reply filed by the detaining authority and in particular paragraph 7. The learned APP supported the impugned order of detention by pointing out that there are several grounds of detention set out in the grounds served to the Petitioner. She also relied upon paragraph 7 of the reply by way of answer to the ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the grounds of detention served to the Petitioner-Detenu. She also relied upon paragraph 7 of the reply by way of answer to the ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the grounds of detention served to the Petitioner-Detenu. The first part of the communication dated 18th February, 2013 by which grounds were communicated to the Petitioner-Detenu clearly recites that the grounds mentioned below were being communicated to the Petitioner on the basis of which the detention order has been issued by the detaining authority under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the said Act. The grounds of detention have been set out in paragraph 1 to 21 below the said recital. It will be necessary to make reference to paragraph 12, which reads thus: "12. You have been arrested many times in the past for below mentioned various crimes registered against you at Rajarampuri P.S., Rajwada P.S., Laxmipuri P.S., Kolhapur & Sagmeshwar P.S. Ratnagiri & all possible preventive measures have been tried against you in the past as per prevailing laws in order to curtail your Consistent criminal and antisocial activities. But on the contrary your criminal activities are increasing day by day. The details of the series of crimes registered against him are as follows." 5. Below the paragraph 12, there are subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) which contain three lists comprising of nine First Information Reports and five non-cognizable offences registered against the Petitioner. The Sections under which the offences are allegedly punishable, the dates of incidents and the names of the police stations have been incorporated therein in a tabular format. However, there is no narration of the incidents which lead to registration of the said offences. Even the gist of the facts set out in the First Information Reports has not been incorporated therein. At this stage, we make a reference to the well known decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khudiram Das V/s. The State of West Bengal and others, [ (1975) 2 SCC 81 ] 1975 (2) SCC 1 . Even the gist of the facts set out in the First Information Reports has not been incorporated therein. At this stage, we make a reference to the well known decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khudiram Das V/s. The State of West Bengal and others, [ (1975) 2 SCC 81 ] 1975 (2) SCC 1 . In paragraph 6, the Apex Court held thus: "If this be the true reason for providing that the grounds of which the order of detention is made should be communicated to the detenu, it is obvious that the 'grounds' mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making: the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based." (underlines added) After referring to its earlier decisions in the case of Golam alias Golam Mallick V/s. State of West Bengal 1975 (2) SCC 4 as well as in the case of Ram Krishan Bhardwaj V/s. State of Delhi AIR 1953 SC 318 , the Apex court held thus : "It is, therefore, clear that nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. That is that plain requirement of the first safeguard in Article 22(5). The second safeguard in Article 22(5) requires that the detenu shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. No avoidable delay, no shortfall in the materials communicated shall stand in the way of the detenu in making any early, yet comprehensive and effective, representation in regard to all basic facts and materials which may have influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention depriving him of his freedom. These are the legal bulwarks enacted by the Constitution makers against arbitrary or improper exercise of the vast powers of preventive detention which may be vested in the executive by a law of preventive detention such as Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971." (underlines added) 6. As we have noted earlier, paragraph 12 is described as a ground of detention by the detaining authority. As we have noted earlier, paragraph 12 is described as a ground of detention by the detaining authority. As held by the Apex Court, a ground means all basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which the order of detention is based. A ground is not merely a fact that that a particular offence has been registered against the Detenu. A ground is a factual constituent on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based. 7. We may also refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subramanian V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and another 2012 (4) SCC 699 . In paragraph 24 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus : "24. The incidents have been highlighted in the grounds of detention coupled with the definite indication as to the impact thereof which have been precisely stated in the grounds of detention mentioned above. All the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to how the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. All these aspects have been considered by the High Court which rightly affirmed the detention order." 8. At this stage, it will be necessary to make reproduce to the paragraph 7 of the reply filed by the detaining authority, which reads thus: "(7) I respectively submit that the offences registered against the petitioner under IPC part V are mentioned with CR. Numbers, Under Sections, date, C.C. No. and present status. The details of the said cases are furnished to the petitioner in the compilation of supporting documents as per index. Out of this seven cases only one case vide CR. No. 171/2012 u/s 399 of IPC and another one Cognizable Case as per local act that is u/s 142 of Bombay Police Act 1951 are relied upon cases and other cases are mentioned just to show the previous criminal background of the petitioner. Hence the incidents and other details are not narrated in the grounds of detention." (underlines added) 9. Thus, the detaining authority has admitted that the incidents and other details of the offences set out in paragraph 12 have not been narrated in the grounds of detention. Hence the incidents and other details are not narrated in the grounds of detention." (underlines added) 9. Thus, the detaining authority has admitted that the incidents and other details of the offences set out in paragraph 12 have not been narrated in the grounds of detention. In view of the clear recital in communication dated 18th February, 2013, the detaining authority cannot deny that paragraph 12 is a ground of detention. Therefore, it is obvious that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on what is incorporated in the said ground no. 12. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Kudiram Das (supra) has held that the "ground" mean all basic facts and materials which have been taking into account by the detaining authority in making an order of detention. Therefore, merely stating the C.R. Number, penal Sections of statute and the name of the police station was not sufficient compliance with the constitutional safeguard of communicating the grounds of detention. Going by the reply, the Detaining Authority was influenced by atleast two offences set out in paragraph 12. However, no details of the facts constituting the alleged offences have been incorporated in the grounds. 11. Thus, in the present case there is a clear violation of the safeguard provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India of communicating the grounds of detention. 12. As basic facts and materials in relation to the said offences which have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority have not been incorporated in the grounds served upon the Petitioner, the other constitutional requirement of making available an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention has been also violated. 13. In the circumstances, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus: "(b) That the order of detention being No. 7/Home/POL/PR198/ 2013 dated 18.02.2013 issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 by the Respondent No.1 against the detenu, be quashed and set aside and on quashing the said order of detention the detenu be released forthwith." Ordered accordingly.