JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, C.J.
1. Rule D.B.
2. Both the parties agree that the matter be heard today.
3. By this writ petition petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for quashing the order of detention No. 673.645.89-Cus.VIII dated 12th December, 1989. The said order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. It appears that 166 pieces of foreign marked gold were recovered from a fiat car No. BHQ-7579 in which the petitioner was traveling.
4. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention were not supplied to the petitioner. The documents which are alleged to have not been supplied are Annexure ‘A’ to the panchnama of seizure of foreign marked gold biscuits from the said car and a voluntary statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Raut, the co-detenu of the petitioner. Item No. 3 of the list of documents annexed to the grounds of detention is panchnama of the case and it consists of two sheets Item No. 13 of the list of documents is a voluntary statement of the co-detenu which consists of three sheets.
5. Ms. Urmil Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed before us the original documents which were supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority. In the copy of Panchnama which was supplied to the petitioner a list of documents is referred to as Annexure ‘A’ appears that although Annexure ‘A’ the panchnama was relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the order of detention, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. Further it appears that item No. 13 of the list of documents relied in the grounds of detention, namely voluntary statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Raut consisting of three sheets was also not supplied to the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that from the file it does not appear that the voluntary statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Raut
6. Mr. Ashok Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that from the file it does not appear that the voluntary statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Raut was supplied to the petitioner. He further states that the record available with the detaining authority does not show that Annexure ‘A’ to the panchnama was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention.
7. From Paragraph 21 of the grounds of detention it is apparent that the documents and the statements annexed therewith, namely the list of documents which was supplied to the petitioner, were relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. Since all the documents as discussed earlier relied upon informing the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention were not supplied to the petitioner, the detention order is vitiated and the same, in our view, is liable to be quashed. Hence the order of detention No. 673/645/89-Cus. VIII dated 12th December, 1989 is quashed. A writ of habeas corpus is issued and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in some other case.