of the detaining authority is altogether a different matter. It is not disputed that Ext. P9 was not placed before and considered by the detaining authority. The detention order will be vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind if a piece of evidence that is relevant, though not binding, had not been considered at all. If a fact or material that might reasonably have affected the decision, whether or not to pass an order of detention, is excluded from consideration, there would be a failure of application of mind which would, in turn, invalidate the detention order. We quite see that the detaining authority might very well have come to the same conclusion even after considering Ext. P9, but in the facts of the case, the omission to consider the same is fatal. We also find that the above material could have significantly affected the decision of the detaining authority on the issue of whether the detenue who was already in custody was likely to be enlarged on bail. As observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred above, the detaining authority has to bear in mind that orders of preventive detention have to be passed only in circumstances where the ordinary criminal laws are not effective in detaining the accused. In the instant case, the rejection of the bail application by the Special Court considering the UAPA case, together with the fact that no fresh bail application had been filed by the detenue till
