Judgment :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, dated 30.12.2012, made in S.C.No.28/2012[CS], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's brother, namely, Balu, s/o.Kutti Gounder, aged 41 years, confined in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The detenu, namely, Balu, s/o.Kutti Gounder, has been detained, under Section 3(2) (a) r/w. Section 3[1] of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, in his proceedings S.C.No.28/2012[CS], dated 30.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the third respondent, dated 30.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Salem. 3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the third respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the third respondent, on 30.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, dated 30.12.2012, had not applied his mind properly. In order to substantiate the said claim, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:- "5. I am aware that Thiru. Balu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri on 18.12.2012 at 5.50 P.M. in Krishnagiri Civil Supplies C.I.D. Cr.No.346/2012 u/s.6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Sub Jail, Dharmapuri till 31.12.2012. He has filed a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in CS CID, Krishnagiri Unit Cr.No.364/2012, u/s. 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of EC Act 1955 and same was dismissed on 28.12.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.5087/2012. Earlier Krishnagiri Unit Cr.No.633/2011, u/s 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 registered against him anticipatory bail was granted to him by the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.29699/2011. Earlier Krishnagiri Unit Cr.No.633/2011, u/s 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 registered against him anticipatory bail was granted to him by the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.29699/2011. In a similar case registered against an accused Thiru.Sivalingam at CS CID Krishnagiri Unit Cr.No.209/2012 u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 bail was granted to him by the District Sessions Court, Dharmapuri in CMP No.1632/2012, dt.10.8.2012.Hence, there is a real possibility of his [Thiru. Balu] coming out on bail by filing an another bail application for Krishnagiri CS CID Cr.No.364/2012, u/s. 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of EC Act 1955 before the appropriate courts, since bails are granted by the courts in such cases. If he [Thiru. Balu] comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Further the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. On the strength of the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Balu is a Black Marketer and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to Prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the community under the provisions of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980." 5. Even though the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, in the ground case, in C.S.C.I.D. Crime No.364 of 2012, by filing another bail petition before the appropriate court, it is noted that the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, in Crime No.364 of 2012, had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, as early as on 28.12.2012, in Cr.M.P.No.5087 of 2012. 6. 6. In view of the fact that the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, in the ground case, had been dismissed, as on the date of the passing of the impugned order of detention, it is not appropriate for the detaining authority to state that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing another bail application, in Crime No.364 of 2012, before the appropriate Court. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention, dated 30.12.2012, without proper application of mind. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned detention order, passed by the third respondent, dated 30.12.2012, is set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.