ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. We propose to dispose of these three writ applications by a common order. All the petitioners have been arrested and detained under [SECTION] of the [ACT], for short 'the Act'. The first point urged is that the copies of the documents and materials to which references had been made in the grounds of detention of the petitioners were not supplied to the detenus, such documents and materials were relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds and these were taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention. Mr. [ENTITY], the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged some more points, however they require no consideration as the petitions must succeed on the first point itself.
2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a line of pronouncements that the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds which had been taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention must be supplied to the detenu "part passu the grounds of detention as they form 'an integral part of the grounds'. We have referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER] [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] disposed of on 19-3-1981. We held as follows:
Copies of the documents and material to which reference is made in the grounds must be supplied to the detenu. The documents and material relied upon in "the grounds" which had had to be taken into consideration by the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be supplied "to the detenu" 'pari passu" the grounds of detention as they formed an integral part of the grounds" vide [PRECEDENT] decided on 22-2-1980 per [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. ; [PRECEDENT] per [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 4-8-1980 Cor. [ENTITY], JJ. [PRECEDENT], per [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 9-9-1980, ; [PRECEDENT], per [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 11-9-1980, ; [PRECEDENT], Corr. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 26-9-1980, ; Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India per [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 24-10-1980 ; S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India per Corr. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 13-11-1980 : [PRECEDENT] per [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 15-12-1980 : 1981 Cri LJ 288 (para 18) and [ENTITY]. [PRECEDENT] per Corr. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ. decided on 6-1-1981 .
3. Mr. [ENTITY], the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that "the documents were not supplied as they were not very material. The question is whether the detaining authority had to rely on the documents to bear up the grounds of detention. If the documents were so relied it must be held that they were material. We have perused the grounds of detention and find that documents were relied on by the detaining authority to bear up the order of detention in the grounds of detention. As such, the detaining authority was bound to supply the documents. In all these cases, the detenus asked for the documents by separate applications but the detaining authority did not furnish them with the copies thereof,
4. In [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT], in the grounds of detention the detaining authority specifically referred to the diary of the detenu as well as to a diary of one Shri [ENTITY] and also a letter dated 20-10-1980 said to have been written by the detenu. These were the documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority is apparent from the grounds of detention. Further, notwithstanding request of the detenu to supply the documents referred to in the grounds of detention, the detenu was not furnished with the documents. As such continued detention of the detenu must be declared void.
5. In [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT], the detaining authority specifically relied on 'a diary' said to have been found from the possession of one [ENTITY]. In order to bear up the grounds of detention the diary in question had to be relied upon by the detaining authority. The petitioner requested for the copies of the documents including the diary in question but the detaining authority failed to supply him with the copies. Under these circumstances we are constrained to hold that the order of detention is bad and it must be set aside.
6. In [CASE NUMBER], [ENTITY] v. D. M. Darrang, the detaining authority admittedly relied on "a diary" said to have been recovered from the detenu. Further there is a reference that the detaining authority relied on a statement said to have been made by the detenu to the police about his alleged clandestine activities. However, neither the diary nor his statement was supplied to him notwithstanding his application for copies made to the detaining authority. In view of the pronouncements of their Lordships in the Supreme Court alluded, we are constrained to hold that the continued detention of the detenus is void and illegal.
6A. In the result we hold that continued detention of the detenus as well as the orders of detention is void and illegal and direct that they should be set at liberty forthwith unless they are wanted in connection with any other case.