ORDER
V.B. Bansal, J.
1. On 3.10.1989, on the basis of prior information, truck No. DIL-4997 along with its occupant Veer Singh alias Veeru was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at I.B.P. Petrol Pump at Libaspur, New Delhi. The said truck was escorted to the Office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and was rummaged in the presence of two independent witnesses, resulting in the recovery of 200 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each bearing foreign markings from the secret cavity in the back side the driver’s cabin of the said truck. The gold as also the truck were seized by the Custom Officer under the provisions of Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. On 3.10.1989, Veer Singh was examined and his statement under Section 108 of the Act was recorded, in which he had inter-alia stated that he was working as a cleaner of Truck No. DIL 4997 and that Jagir Singh was the driver of the truck and after he worked for a week with him (Jagir Singh), Veer Singh was told by Jagir Singh that he was transporting smuggled gold of one Balwinder Singh from Amritsar to Delhi after concealing the same in the said truck and Veer Singh was told that he would be paid Rs. 2000/- per trip for giving help in the transporting of gold, to which, Veer Singh agreed. It was also stated by him that on 29.9.1989, he and Jagir Singh came to Delhi after loading rice in the truck No. DIL 4997 having 200 gold biscuits in the truck, which was parked in Azad Pur Subzi Mandi and Jagir Singh took out 200 gold biscuits and gave the same to some one when Veer Singh continued to sit in the truck. It was further stated by him that on 2.10.1989, he was told by Jagir Singh that they were to go to Delhi and Veer Singh and Jagir Singh went to Ghee Mandi, Amritsar in the truck and waited for Balwinder Singh, who came to about 8.00 p.m. and gave a polythene bag to Jagir Singh, when he gave information to Veer Singh that it contained 200 gold biscuits. It was also stated by him that Veer Singh concealed the bag in the cavity made behind the cabin of the driver in the truck and on reaching at Delhi, truck was parked at Petrol Pump at Libaspur when Jagir Singh went to Delhi by bus and in the mean time, the truck was taken to the Office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence by the officers, where, 200 gold biscuits were recovered. It was also stated that efforts to trace him could not succeed and Veer Singh was arrested under Section 104 of the Act and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi en 3.10.1989. All the material was placed before Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who, in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1-) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”) passed an order dated 6.11.1989 that Jagir Singh alias Jagira be detained and be kept in custody in Central Jail Tihar with a view to restraining him from indulging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods.
3. Jagir Singh alias Jagira was served with detention order on 29.6.1993 at Central Jail, Tihar when the grounds of detention, along with documents relied upon in support of the detention were also supplied. By way of this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention and prayed that the same be quashed and he be released forthwith.
4. I have heard Shri Naveen Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.C. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the record.
5. A number of grounds have been taken up by the petitioner to challenge the order of detention. However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his submissions only on one ground that is the placing of reliance by the detaining authority on irrelevant documents. Submission of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has been that the order of detention has been passed in a mechanical way and without application of mind, which is clearly indicated from the fact that reliance has been placed on irrelevant documents on account of which, the order of detention can not be sustained. This plea is contained in “GROUND ‘0’” of the Writ Petition, which reads as under:
O/ BECAUSE the Petitioner submits that he has received a bunch of documents along with the grounds of detention. The Petitioner was served with the various documents which have no relevancy or connection with the Petitioner or with the smuggling activities of the Petitioner. The same are absolutely irrelevant documents as far as the Petitioner is concerned. The Petitioner submits that the detaining authority has not even applied its mind to the relevancy of the said documents. The following documents which have been supplied by the detaining authority are irrelevant. The document mentioned at Sr. No. 7 application under Section 110(1)(b) dated 19.10.1989 and its free Punjabi translation. The document mentioned at Sr. No. 10 of the list of documents relied uponapplication dated 2.11.1989 of Shri Satish Aggarwal, Advocate, for inspection of the Court file with the Court Order, report of Shri Satish Aggarwal and its Punjabi translation. The documents mentioned at Sr. Nos. 15 and 16application for proper treatment dated 28.10.1989 with court order and its free Punjabi translation. Similarly, the documents mentioned at Serial Nos. 16 and 17 are also irrelevant. The Petitioner is annexing hereto copies of these documents/applications which are collectively marked as Annexure ‘F’. The Petitioner submits that there is complete non-application of mind in passing the order of detention. The order of detention is illegal, null and void, and therefore, bad in law.
6. The petitioner has placed reliance on the grounds of detention as also the list of the relied upon documents. A perusal of this list shows that at Serial No. 10 is application dated 2.11.1989 of Shri Satish Aggarwal, Advocate, for inspection of the court file with the court order, report of Shri Satish Aggarwal and its Punjabi translation. Similarly at Serial No. 16 is application dated 6.11.1989 for inspection of file of Shri Satish Aggarwal with Courts orders and report of Shri Aggarwal and its free Punjabi translation, while entry at Serial No. 7 is application under Section 110(1-8) dated 19.10.1989 and its free Punjabi translation.
7. Admittedly, the order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out as to how these documents could be considered to be relevant for arriving at his subjective satisfaction by the Appropriate Authority i.e. respondent No. 2.
8. Similar question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Sikri @ Vedipetitioner v. Union of India and Ors. Respondents . It would be convenient to refer to the following paras:
7…”I am conscious of the fact that the decision has to be arrived at by the detaining authority by subjective satisfaction and court is not to sit over judgment to find out if the material was sufficient or insufficient. However, in case the detaining authority relies upon irrelevant document it would clearly indicate that there was complete non-application of mind. The law is well settled that all the material against a person has to be placed before the detaining authority who has to scrutinise the same and has to rely only on material documents showing the link of the person concerned with his prejudicial activities. In case Smt. Shalini Soni and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , Supreme Court has observed as follows :
…It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matter only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. Where there is further an express statutory obligation to communicate not merely the decision but the grounds on which the decision is founded, it is a necessary corollary that the grounds communicated, that is, the grounds so made known, should be seen to pertain to pertinent and proximate matters and should comprise all the constituent facts and materials that went in to make up the mind of the statutory functionary and not merely the inferential conclusions….
8. In another case Diwan Singh Verma v. Union of India and Ors. 1988 (2) Delhi Lawyers 197, it has been held that if the detaining authority relies upon a set of documents which provide no evidence against the detenu, it would follow that the application of mind was totally casual and mechanical and it was not the type of the application of mind which the law insists upon. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thus, stands vitiated if some irrelevant documents are taken into consideration while arriving at a conclusion to pass the order of detention. To the same effect are two cases Jagdish Mitra v. Union of India and Ors. 1990 Crl. L.J. 269 and Criminal Writ Nos. 568, 686 and 691 of 1989 decided on 9th January, 1990.
9…Considering the facts of this case in the light of the aforesaid decisions it is clear that the detaining authority has placed reliance upon irrelevant documents on account of which the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is clear that there is non-application of mind by the detaining authority as the aforesaid documents are not in any manner shown to be connected with the prejudicial activities of the petitioner…..
9. It is apparent that the documents referred to earlier were totally irrelevant and did not pertain to or having any bearing on the activities of the petitioner, which were required to be prevented, thus, indicating a clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority. There can possibly be no dispute that the High Court can not sit in judgment over the subjective satisfaction, arrived at by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing a detention order and a probe into the recesses of the mind of the detaining authority to find out as to what weighed with it while reaching its subjective satisfaction, is not possible. There is, however, no denial with regard to the detaining authority having considered the aforesaid documents and they have not been shown to be relevant in any manner.
10. The same view is reflected in the judgment dated 8.9.1993 in Crl. W.No. 31/93 – Namesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.; Crl. W. 23/93 jagpreet Singh v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 3.9.1993; Crl. W. 163/93 decided on 12.8.1993 Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors. and Vishwa Nath @ Pappu v. Union of India and Ors. (1993 JCC 46); Smt. Ayisha Abdulla Hussain v. Union of India and Ors. (1992 JCC 526); Trilochan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1992 JCC 535). In case Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and Ors. it has clearly been held that considering the irrelevant documents for passing the detention order would suffer from the vice of consideration on extraneous material vitiating the validity of the order. It is, thus, clear that on this short ground, the petitioner must succeed.
11. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed, rule is made absolute and order of detention dated 6.11.1989 is quashed. Petitioner Jagir Singh is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.