Charanjit Talwar, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein, Dalam Chand Tejmalbaid, was arrested on 21/07/1981 under the provisions of Customs Actand remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitanmagistrate, Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition for issuance of a writ ofhabeas corpus challenging his detention by virtue of the said remand order. That petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 83/81) was allowed by a divisionbench of this Court on 18/12/1981. The case is reported in 1982criminal Law Journal at page 747. The petitioner was directed to bereleased forthwith. ( 2 ) WHILE in judicial custody the impugned order dated 27/08/1981 was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smugglinggoods and from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation andaugmentation of foreign exchange. This order was served on the detenueon that very day. It appears that the fact that the detention order had beenpassed against the petitioner was not brought to the notice of divisionbench. On that petition being allowed, the petitioner was released from thecentral Jail, Tihar on 19/12/1981, inspite of the fact that thecase of the petitioner for preventive detention had been approved by theadvisory Board. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Bombay. He was arrested on 30thmarch, 1983 and was brought to Delhi and lodged in the said Tihar Jail. According to the respondents the petitioner has been lodged in jail as "hehad aot undergone his full term of detention inasmuch as he was detainedon 28. 8 81 and erroneously released by jail authorities on 19. 12. 81 and isrequired to undergo the remaining period of detention for a period of one yearless than the period he had already undergone detention. " (Italics added) ( 4 ) THE above averment of Shri S. K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary,ministry of Finance, in a nut shell gives the factual as well as the legalposition as understood by the Government of India. A bare reading of theplea shows that the action taken now by the Govt. of India is entirelypunitive. The petitioner was released on 19/12/1981 admittedlyby the jail authorities. It cannot be said that he had committed any fraudor had hoodwinked any authority. The detention order was in operationon the date of his release from jail. Therefore, he ought not to have beenreleased. The judgment of this court dealt only with the challenge to theorder of judicial remand. The petitioner was released on 19/12/1981 admittedlyby the jail authorities. It cannot be said that he had committed any fraudor had hoodwinked any authority. The detention order was in operationon the date of his release from jail. Therefore, he ought not to have beenreleased. The judgment of this court dealt only with the challenge to theorder of judicial remand. It is however admitted by the respondents thatthe petitioner had been erroneously released by the jail authorities. Theplea raised in the counter affidavit as well as before us that under the lawthe petitioner is required to undergo the remaining period of detention byvirtue of the order passed on 27/08/1981 is entirely misconceivedapart from being untenable. ( 5 ) THE continued detention of the petitioner herein under the impugned order dated 27/08/1981 is illegal. We allow the petition anddirect that the petitioner be released forthwith.