JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (detenu) has prayed that this Court be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing his release, from preventive detention in pursuance of the detention order dated 29-10-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1-Mr. C.D. Singh, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and the Detaining Authority, detaining him under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The detention order along with grounds of detention bearing the same date (29-10-96) was contemporaneously served on the petitioner on 22-11-1996. 2. Since this writ petition should succeed on a purely legal ground, namely that without rescinding the detention order dated 12-9-1996 the respondent No. 1 could not have issued the detention order dated 29-10-1996, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu which have been set out in the grounds of detention. 3. Mr. M.R. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that a perusal of para 9 of the return filed by the respondent No. 1 shows that the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the annexures thereto were signed by the respondent No. 1 on 12-9-1996. On the said date, the said respondent called for translation of the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents. The sponsoring authority sent additional documents for consideration which he once again considered and issued the order of detention on 29-10-1996 contemporaneously with the grounds of detention. Mr. Kotwal urged that without rescinding the detention order and the grounds of detention signed on 12-9-1996, the said respondent could not have issued the detention order dated 29-10-1996 along with grounds of detention bearing the said date. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Kotwal placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, dated 25-10-1986, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 193 of 1986, in the case of (Smt. Leelaben Rattanchand Jain v. Union of India and another)1. Since the said judgment is short and in our view its reproduction is necessary to appreciate Mr. Kotwal's contention, we are reproducing it. It reads thus:- "As has been admitted by the detaining authority in its affidavit, the grounds of detention were formulated and the detention order was passed on 23rd August, 1983. Since the said judgment is short and in our view its reproduction is necessary to appreciate Mr. Kotwal's contention, we are reproducing it. It reads thus:- "As has been admitted by the detaining authority in its affidavit, the grounds of detention were formulated and the detention order was passed on 23rd August, 1983. The additional documents were received on 4th and 10th September, 1985. The detaining authority no doubt has stated that he had considered the additional documents and did not feel it necessary to alter the grounds of detention formulated or the order of detention he had already passed on 23rd August 1985. We have laid down in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 165 and 384 of 1986 that the only proper and legal course for the detaining authority in such circumstances is to rescind the order of detention and the grounds which have been formulated and then to consider all the documents together and frame or formulate fresh grounds of detention and pass the order of detention afresh, if warranted. This was obviously not done for reasons which are not explained. Hence, the order of detention has to be set aside and we hereby set it aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly, The detenu to be released forthwith unless required in any other case." 4. Perusal of the said judgment, in our view, bears out the correctness of Mr. Kotwal's submission. In the said case, the detention order along with grounds of detention was passed on 23-8-1983 additional documents were received on 4th and 10th September, 1985; and the detaining authority considered the additional documents but did not feel it necessary to alter the grounds of detention formulated or the order of detention which he had already passed on 23-8-1985. In the said factual matrix, the Division Bench relying upon the judgment passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 165 and 384 of 1986 held that the only proper and legal course for the detaining authority, in such circumstances, was to rescind the order of detention and the grounds of detention and then to consider all the documents together and formulate fresh detention order as also the grounds of detention. 5. We feel that the facts in the said authority as well as in the present petition are identical and the said authority has a blanket bearing on our case. 6. Mr. 5. We feel that the facts in the said authority as well as in the present petition are identical and the said authority has a blanket bearing on our case. 6. Mr. D.G. Bagve learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, strenuously urged that the ratio laid down in Criminal Writ Petition No. 193 of 1986 would have no bearing so far as the present petition is concerned because in his contention the same detention order which was signed on 12-9-1996 was issued on 29-10-1996. We regret that this has not been stated in the return of respondent No. 1. We have earlier reproduced the averments disclosed in para 9 of the return of the detaining authority and in our judgment they do not disclose that it was the detention order which was signed on 12-9-1996 which was issued on 29-10-1996. Hence we reject the said submission of Mr. Bagve. 7. For the said reasons, we feel that the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law and warrants to be set aside. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the petitioner-detenu who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----