JUDGMENT
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who styles herself as mother of the detenu – Sanjeev Bhatia, has impugned the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by the second respondant Mrs. Joyce Shankaran, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharahtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbal – 32 detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (52 of 1974). (Hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act. 1974.)
2. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 14.2.2001 was served on the detenu on 24.2.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since it is common ground between them that when the second respondent passed the Impugned order against the detenu, the detenu was on ball in a case under section 135 of the Customs Act, which case, as is manifest from the grounds of detention, constitutes the basis of the detention qf the detenu
under the impugned order and the copy of the bail application of the detenu and the bail order were /neither placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the second respondent before she passed the impugned order, nor supplied to the detenu, the impugned order would be rendered bad in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in para 12 (6) of the case Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India & ors..
Para 12[6) of the said decision reads thus :-
“In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the Detaining Authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the Authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu.”
4. Hence, on account of the failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place before the second respondent (Detaining Authority) the copy of the bail application and the bail order, the subjective satisfaction of the second respondent to detain the detenu under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act stands vitiated on the ground that copies of vital documents were not placed before her andsince the detenu was not placed before her and since the detenu was not furnished with the copies of the aforesaid vital documents, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired.
5. In the circumstances we allow this petition; quash and set aside the impugned order; direct that the detenu Sanjeev Bhatia be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case and make the rule absolute.