JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, ACJ. — By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order dated 28.7.2001 issued by the District Magis¬trate, Kendrapara under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and prays of a writ of habeas corpus directing his release after quashing the same. 2. The District Magistrate, Kendrapara has filed counter affidavit. 3. Shri Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following three contentions : (i) The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate without showing his awareness that the petitioner had already been arrested and was in judicial custody by the relevant date; (ii) There is no mention in the grounds of detention about the authority to whom the petitioner could make representation for reconsideration of his release; and (iii) The representation of the petitioner dated 14.8.2001 made to the Central Government is pending without being disposed of resulting in violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 4. We need not consider all the aforesaid three grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner because the writ application is bound to succeed on the first ground. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 25.7.2001 and has since then been in judicial custody. As already indicated, the order of detention was made on 28.7.2001. 6. It is now well settled that preventive detention is resorted to thwart future action. If the detenu is already in jail charged with an offence, he is thereby prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of com¬modities essential to the community. There may be in a given case the need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail. 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 preven¬tive detention order needs to be made. 7. On perusal of the detention order and the grounds of detention, we do not find anything to show the awareness of the detaining authority that the petitioner was already in jail and yet the impugned order of detention was required to be made. 7. On perusal of the detention order and the grounds of detention, we do not find anything to show the awareness of the detaining authority that the petitioner was already in jail and yet the impugned order of detention was required to be made. This clearly indicates non-application of mind which results in inval¬idation of the order. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of deten¬tion is hereby quashed. We accordingly direct release of the petitioner forthwith if his detention is not required in any case. The writ application is allowed. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Application allowed.