AASHWINKUMAR B MALARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present detention order was issued and served on the detenu on 25th September, 1986 under COFEPOSA. It is not disputed that the order was passed and the grounds in support of the said order were already formulated on 1st July, 1986 on the basis of the documents which were before the Detaining Authority on that day, viz. documents at Serial Nos. 1 to 18 in the list of documents supplied to the detenu. It is also not disputed that additional documents were received subsequently in four instalments, viz. documents at Serial Nos. 19 to 24 on 23rd July, 1986, at Serial Nos. 25 and 26 on 24th July, 1986, at Serial Nos. 27 to 30 on 30th July, 1986 and the document at Serial No. 31 on 6th August, 1986. It is the case of the Detaining Authority that he considered afresh every time on 24th and 30th July, 1986 and 22nd September, 1986 the documents received till that day together with the documents which were available on 1st July, 1986, and on each occasion he came to the conclusion that there was no need to alter the order passed and the grounds formulated on July 1st, 1986, and thereafter issued the same order along with the same grounds.

(2.) It appears that there is a grave misunderstanding on the part of the Detaining Authority of the correct import of our decisions on the subject given earlier. We have been at pains to emphasize that the detention order is passed on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, which satisfaction is to be arrived at by applying mind to all the material available on the record. We thought that it is elementary that the grounds of detention have to be culled from the material in questions after considering it together at a time. It is only the satisfaction so arrived at which can be considered valid in the eyes of law. For then alone it satisfies the test of a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the totality of the circumstances taken together. We had pointed out that this test cannot be satisfied if the documents are considered piecemeal. When the grounds are formulated and the order is passed already and kept ready earlier on the basis of the material then available and such grounds and order are merely endorsed from time to time after considering the documents received subsequently whether read in isolation or together with the earlier documents, it makes a mockery of law and can hardly satisfy the test of a conclusion drawn by considering all the material together. Where the conclusions are predrawn and the documents received subsequently are only referred to, to confirm or endorse the said conclusions, the process indulged in is not of forming a subjective satisfaction but one of finding reasons to support the preconceived formulations. That is exactly what the Detaining Authority has done in the present case. Such an approach can hardly be countenanced. We once again reiterate in as clear terms as is possible for us to do that the grounds of detention have to be formulated and the order has to be passed only after considering all the material together and at a time. The checking of the fresh material received with the grounds already formulated and the order kept ready is nothing but a pretence of following the law and is a fraud upon it.

(3.) Hence this petition will have to be allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside and the Rule is made absolute accordingly. The detenu to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Petition allowed.