Judgment :- Venkataswamy, J. The Writ Petition filed by the detenu is for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus to release him from the jail and set him at liberty in view of the invalidity of the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The petitioner was detained on 22.8.1989 under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. The petitioner came to adverse notice in three instances referred to in the grounds of detention. The ground case is dated 5.8.1989. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition various grounds challenging the detention order are taken, the only ground urged before us is that the detaining authority, though was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in jail has not stated that there was compelling necessity to pass the detention order under Sec.3(1) of the Act. Therefore the detention order is vitiated. 2. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2027. In paragraph 4 of the ground of detention order, this is all what is stated by the detaining authority: “4. I am aware that Thiru Mani @ Subramani is in remand and would be proceeded with under the normal law. However, I am satisfied that his activities warrant his detention under the Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982”. Though several opportunities were given to the respondents to file counter affidavit to answer the ground taken in the affidavit on this point, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his contention. The Supreme Court in N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2027 has summarised the principles to be followed in the matter of preventive detention. In Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1023 the Supreme Court observed as follows: “Preventive detention is resorted to, to thwart future action. In Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1023 the Supreme Court observed as follows: “Preventive detention is resorted to, to thwart future action. If the detenu is already in jail charged with a serious offence, he is thereby prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state. May be, in a given case there yet may be the need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail. But in such a situation the detaining authority must disclose awareness of the fact that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is to the knowledge of the authority already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a prevention detention order needs to be made. There is nothing to indicate the awareness of the detaining authority that detenu was already in jail and yet the impugned order is required to be made. This, in our opinion, clearly exhibits non-application of mind and would result in invalidation of the order.” After quoting the above passage, the Supreme Court in N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2027 has observed at paragraph 22 as follows: “We may summarise and reiterate the settled principle. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention and the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case; Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order, etc., ordinarily it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody; the detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order; but, even so, if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release. This appears to us to be the correct legal position.” Applying the above ratio of the Supreme Court judgment, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of detention is vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority failed to consider the compelling necessity to detain the detenu under the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and we direct the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.