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 31.12.2012, made in proceedings No.Cr.M.P.No.33/BM/2012(E1), and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Saleem, son of Jamaludeen, aged about 31 years, confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, Saleem, son of Jamaludeen, who has been detained, under Section 3(1), read with 3(2) (a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, in his proceedings No.Cr.M.P.No.33/BM/ 2012(E1), dated 31.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the third respondent, dated 31.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3. Even though various grounds had been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed emphasis on the grounds mentioned hereunder, while stating that the impugned detention order passed by the detaining authority is bad in the eye of law. He had submitted that there was clear non-application of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, while passing the detention order against the detenu. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to Paragraph5 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows: "5. I am aware that Thiru.Saleem was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Cr.Nos.280/2012 and 322/2012 under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955 on 02.12.2012 at 6.45 P.M. and lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore till 14.12.2012 as remand prisoner. Further his remand period was extended till 28.12.2012. Further his remand period was extended till 11.01.2013. Further his remand period was extended till 28.12.2012. Further his remand period was extended till 11.01.2013. He has filed a bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.No.280/2012 under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955 before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore in CMP No.4651/2012 and it was dismissed on 06.12.2012 and his bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.No.322/2012 under section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore C.M.P.No.4710/2012 was dismissed on 11.12.2012. In a similar case registered in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore Unit Cr.No.912/11 under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955 bail was granted to the accused Thiru Saleem by the court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in CMP No.4713/2011 on 28.12.2011. Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru Saleem coming out on bail in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.Nos.280/2012 and 322/12 under section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955 by filing bail applications before the appropriate court. Since bails are being granted by the courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he is likely to indulge in such further prejudicial activities in future. Therefore there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention against him with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further recourse to the 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 Essential Commodities to the community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru. Saleem is a "Black Marketeer" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 in order to prevent him from indulging in such acts in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community." 5. Saleem is a "Black Marketeer" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 in order to prevent him from indulging in such acts in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community." 5. In paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, it had been stated that the accused has filed a bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit, in Cr.No.280/2012, under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955, before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore, in CMP No.4651/2012 and it was dismissed, on 6.12.2012, and his bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit, in Cr.No.322/2012, under section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955, before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore, C.M.P.No.4710/2012 was dismissed, on 11.12.2012. 6. Even though, in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that in a similar case registered in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore, Unit Cr.No.912/2011, under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955, against the detenu, bail had been granted by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1V, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No.4713/2011, on 28.12.2011, the detaining authority had not shown sufficient reasons to come to the conclusion that the detenu would come out on bail in the case in Cr.Nos.280/2012 and 322/2012, under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the detention order had been passed by the detaining authority after arriving at his subjective satisfaction, based on the cogent materials available before him. He had further submitted that the order of detention passed by the detaining authority does not suffer from non-application of mind by the said authority. 8. He had further submitted that the order of detention passed by the detaining authority does not suffer from non-application of mind by the said authority. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the detaining authority had not shown sufficient reasons to come to the conclusion that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case, in Cr.Nos.280/2012, and 322/2012 under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. 9. Thus, it is noted that there has been no proper application of mind by the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of the detention, dated 31.12.2012. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order, dated 31.12.2012. 10. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the third respondent is quashed, and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.