( 1 ) BY our order passed on 27th September, 1983, we had quashed the impugned detention order dated 22nd February, 1983. While making the Rule absolute we had directed that the petitioner. Vinod Kumar Arora be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under any other valid order passed by a Court or an authority. We now proceed to set out the reasons for quashing the detention order.

( 2 ) MR. R. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the rule issued in this writ of habeas corpus, urged mainly one point. He submitted that the petitioner was not supplied copies of relevant documents on which reliance was placed by the Administrator in the grounds of detention. The plea is that as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the detention order, the protection of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution was denied to him.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the submission it is necessary to notice a few facts.

( 4 ) THE detention order was passed on 22nd February, 1983, by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 (1) read with