ORDER 1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.Leave granted. 3. The appellant challenged the detention order dated 30-7-1996 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA") as amended on various grounds before the High Court of Delhi by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 341 of 2000. That petition was rejected by the High Court by judgment and order dated 25-5-2001 by holding that it is not a fit case where any interference is called for before the execution of the order of detention. 4. At the time of hearing of this matter learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that similar detention orders were passed against six persons during the period from 7-12-1995 to 12-8-1996. He pointed out that five out of six detention orders were revoked by the competent authority on the ground that the custom duty which was required to be paid was paid by them before the execution of the detention orders. Despite this fact the detention order passed against the appellant was not revoked even though he has also paid the custom duty as demanded. It has also been pointed out that the sponsoring authority submitted its report before the detaining authority to revoke the detention order which was passed against the appellant. He has also pointed out that after the detention order was passed the appellant surrendered his licence and had ceased all economic activities of exporting or importing of goods. 5. In response to the contention raised by the appellant the detaining a authority - Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau has filed an affidavit wherein it is admitted that similar five detention orders were revoked. However, it is stated that at the relevant time when the detention orders with regard to the other persons were revoked, the perception of the Central Government was, the fact of payment of duty in the cases detected against these persons may act as deterrent against their chance of indulging in similar prejudicial activities in future since this may adversely affect their financial backbone. Following the said line of thinking the Central Government had revoked the detention orders issued against those five persons. Following the said line of thinking the Central Government had revoked the detention orders issued against those five persons. However, subsequently that perception was changed and according to the view of the detaining authority there was no necessity of revoking the detention order before its execution. 6. In our view, there is no reason to discriminate the appellant and the reason given by the authority in not revoking the detention order could hardly be justified. It is true that normally before the execution of the detention order the same is not required to be quashed and set aside. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no purpose will be served by continuing the detention order. It is pointed out that the appellant has ceased his activities in the field of import or export. He has already paid the tax with penalty as demanded by the authority. There is nothing on record that since the last five years the appellant has indulged in any such activity. It is to be noted that the purpose of passing the detention order is to prevent the detenu from continuing his prejudicial activity but not to punish him. 7. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 30-7-1996 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA is quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.