K.M. NATARAJAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ petition is filed by one M. Venkatesan, son of the detenu, T. Meganatnan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and direct the detenu detained in Central Prison, Vellore, as per the orders of the second respondent in R. C. C. 3 D. O. 41/9 1 dated 19. 11. 1991 to be produced before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.

( 2 ) THE detenu came to the adverse notice as a habitual Forest offender in view of four adverse cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The impugned order of detention was passed by the second respondent - District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District at Vellore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Forest Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

( 3 ) THE facts which led to the passing of the abovesaid detention order have been set out in detail in the grounds of detention and it has been served on the detenu. Hence we do not propose to reiterate the same especially in view of the limited plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though various grounds are taken in the affidavit of the petitioner the learned counsel Mr. T. V. Bakthavatsalam, challenged the impugned order on ground (d) wherein it is contended that the several grounds and reasons alleged by the detaining authority are extraneous and not relevant to the papers and documents furnished to the detenu,. The extraneous reasons and arguments advanced in the detention are illogical, unreasonable, exaggerated and untenable. In fact in paragraph 4 of the wounds of detention, it is stated that by selectively removing the best Sandalwood trees, the bat population is drastically reduced which in turn increases the pest population posing danger to the food web". This statement is extraneous and no material is furnished to the detenu. Even the definition of Forest Offender in Act 14 of 1982 does not satisfy in the case of detenu.

( 4 ) THOUGH this writ petition was admitted on 11. 2. 1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 30. 3. 1992, inspite of number of adjournments granted till this date no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

( 5 ) THE allegations leveled by the petitioner in support of the contentions stand unrebutted. In this connection, the learned counsel drew. Out attention to the grounds of detention wherein the above portion was very much relied on by the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention. When we asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor even though counter is not filed whether from the records he is having any material to substantiate that statement made by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention for detaining the detenu, he fairly conceded that there is no material available in the file and that no material was supplied to the detenu also. That the detaining authority relied on this material very much when he ordered detention of the detenu is not in dispute. In this connection the learned. counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the decision reported in Subhashi Babu v. State by Secretary for Home etc, wherein this Court in similar circumstances came to the conclusion that the order of detention passed on extraneous consideration of materials is illegal and improper, relying on the locations of the Supreme Court. The ratio in the above decision would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Hence we are of the view that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of consideration of extraneous materials while arriving at the subjective satisfaction in passing the order of detention.

( 6 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the detenu Meganathan is directed to be set at liberty forth with unless he is required in any other cause. Petition allowed.