Preventive detention requires disclosure of adverse Advisory Board opinion in a connected case; omission vitiates the order.

Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to apply its mind to all material and relevant circumstances. Where the surviving ground of detention is identical to that in a connected case arising from the same incident, the Advisory Board's earlier opinion that there was no sufficient cause for detention on that ground was a relevant circumstance that had to be placed before the authority. The omission to do so deprived the authority of material that could reasonably have affected its decision, so the detention order was vitiated and set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of preventive detention was vitiated because the detaining authority was not apprised of a highly relevant circumstance, namely the Advisory Board's opinion in a connected case arising out of the same transaction and involving an identical ground of detention.

Analysis: An order of detention must be passed on a proper application of mind to all material and relevant circumstances bearing on the detenu's case. Where the remaining surviving ground of detention is common to another detenu involved in the same incident, the fact that the Advisory Board had already found no sufficient cause for detention on that very ground was a relevant consideration. The detaining authority was entitled to assess the material independently, but it could do so only if the State placed before it the earlier adverse opinion of the Advisory Board. The omission deprived the authority of a circumstance that might reasonably have affected its decision.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated and was liable to be set aside; the petition was allowed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

---