Detention orders must be based on comprehensive assessments of all material facts; failure to consider vital evidence renders them void.

1. The petitioner herein is the wife of one Jamnadas Naranbhai Patel and she complains about the order of detention passed by the State of Gujarat against her husband directing that her husband should be detained in prison under the provisions of S.3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 . The petition is presented under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order of detention at Annexure - 'A'. The order of detention was passed against the detenu on Jan. 29, 1981. It was passed by the State of Gujarat and it has been duly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government. The order was passed because the Government of Gujarat was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it was necessary to detain him. The grounds of detention are dated Feb. 1, 1981 and it has been stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu had constructed a multistoreyed building called Asopalav Apartments in Jagnath Plot in Rajkot City. In the statements made by the detenu on Sept. 18, 1980, Oct. 15, 1980, Oct. 28, 1980 and on Oct. 14, 1980 before Panchas, the detenu had admitted that the detenu was in full charge of all the details regarding the construction of the said Asopalav Apartments. The other partners of the detenu, namely, Sarvashri Dayabhai Ranchhodbhai Chovatia, Lalitbhai Khodidas Patel and Ratilal Jethabhai Patel, in their respective statements recorded respectively on Sept. 19, 1980. Sept. 19, 1980 and Oct. 27, 1980 had stated that the detenu was attending to all the matters connected with the construction of the Asopalav Apartments. On the basis of a certificate issued by the architects of the detenu, namely, Pattcons Architects, the detenu had applied on December 12, 1979 asking for 8785 bags of cement for the construction of the said Apartments and according to the grounds of detention, in the said application of December 12, 1979 the detenu had stated that on the date of the application the detenu had no stock of cement with him.

2. The Collector of Rajkot by his letter dated December 29, 1979 bearing No. Food : R. D. Vashi - 6838, permitted the detenu to get his plans to be registered with nine cement dealers at Rajkot, namely Saurashtra Emporium, Apna Bazar, Cambay Investment Corporation, K. P. Brothers, Mozambik Trade Agency, Rajkot Lodhika Sangh, Desai Brothers, Raghuvir Hardware and Jagjivan Kakubhai Ralia. In the course of the investigation, according to the grounds of detention, it was found that the six storeyed building which was under construction as Asopalav Apartments by the detenu was largely completed and as against the total requirement of 8785 bags of cement the detenu had only got 939 bags of cement from different cement dealers whose names have been set oat in the grounds of detention. In the presence of Panchas, in his statement recorded on October 15, 1980 the detenu, according to the grounds of detention, admitted that for the work which remained to be carried out in the Asopalav Apartments the detenu would be in need of only 1000 bags of cement. Hence, according to the grounds of detention, for the work completed by the time the inspection was carried out of the Asopalav Apartments, that is, on about Oct. 15, 1980, in the said building only 7785 bags of cement could have been utilised for the stage of construction completed till then. In the statement recorded on Oct. 15, 1980 the detenu had claimed that in the construction work and also in the plastering work the