Judgment N. N. MATHUR. J. ( 1 ) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Bhagwat Singh, the detenu herein challenging the legality of the order of detention dated 7/6/2002 passed by the District Magistrate. Udaipur clamping upon the detenue the above order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the NSA on the ground that he on consideration of material placed before him was satisfied that it was necessary to make the said order with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. In pursuance of the detention order the detenu has been detained in the Central Jail, Udaipur. The State has approved the impugned order of detention by order dated 22/7/2002 (Annex. 5 ). Along with the impugned order the grounds of detention were also served upon the detenu. The grounds, which have prevailed with the detaining Authority are that he detenu since 1991 in the City of Udaipur in the surrounding areas has been involved in criminal activities and has created an atmosphere of general terror among the people of the locality. The detaining Authority observed that the detenu with his associate criminals viz; Yogesh Vyas. Jitesh, Vishnu alias Dholu Sindhi, Roshan Harijan, Vijay alias Changa, Dinesh alias Cow, Lokesh Kumawat, Karan Singh etc. , out of which many are history sheeters, has formed a strong gang. The detenu is the leader of the said criminal gang. The detenu is indulged in serious crimes endangering the normal human life of the people in the locality causing atmosphere of fear among the people. The fear among the people is to the extent that many of the crimes committed by the detenu were not even reported. The witnesses do not come to the court due to threats and whosoever comes, turns hostile resulting most of the cases lodged against the detenu into his acquittal. Even during investigation, nobody is prepared to be a. motbir for the documents like preparation of the site plan etc. After the cases are registered against him he indulges in threatening victims and obtains false affidavits and produces the same in the court. He has also been producing affidavits in support of the anticipatory bail after obtaining them by coercive means. After the cases are registered against him he indulges in threatening victims and obtains false affidavits and produces the same in the court. He has also been producing affidavits in support of the anticipatory bail after obtaining them by coercive means. The detenu has become fearless and has no respect for the rule of law. Since 1991, he has indulged himself in the criminal activities like loot, dacoity, robbery, abduction/kidnapping, claiming ransom injuring people endangering their lives, getting the shops and houses vacated by threatening etc. For last 3/4 years he has been found indulged in getting the houses and shops vacated unlawfully. In total 34 cases have been registered against the detenu. out of which in 12 cases, he has succeeded in turning the witnesses hostile and in 8 cases, he has been able to get acquittal by getting the matters compromised by coercive means. ( 2 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Sundeep Mehta, learned counsel for the detenu, that on the same grounds, earlier also he was detained under Sec. 3 (2) of the NSA by order dated 6th June, 2000 and the said order of detention was quashed by the order of this Court dated Nov. 27, 2000, Bhagwat Singh v. The District Magistrate, Udaipur. In the said case, this Court found that the District Magistrate had taken into consideration six cases in which he stood acquitted before the order of detention was passed. In the said case the Court observed as follows: We find that six cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted are of much more serious nature than other 12 cases. We are of the view that six cases referred to in Schedule A are material and non-mentioning of acquittal in those cases could have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make a detention order. Even in a case of acquittal, the detaining authority could have resorted to detention and in that case, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate would not have called for interference by this court but the sponsoring authority has been most unfair to the detenu in not disclosing the fact to the District Magistrate that in six cases referred in Schedule AT, the detenu stood acquitted. Non placing of the material fact namely the acquittal of the detenu in six cases as given in Schedule A and extracted above has resulted in non application of mind of the detaining authority to the1. D. B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 3489/ 2000. said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction rendering the impugned detention order invalid. " ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel has placed before us the grounds of detention passed in earlier case and also in the instant case. It is pointed out that the grounds pf detention for detaining the petitioner in the year 2000 and the. grounds of detention for detaining the petitioner present are common except the grounds mentioned in para Nos. 1, 2, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. It is contended by the learned counsel that once the order of detention has been set aside by this Court, it was not open for the detaining Authority to pass a fresh order of detention on the same grounds. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Chhagan Bhagwan, Kahar v. N. L. Kalna. ( 4 ) ON the other hand. it is submitted by Mr. R. P. Vyas. learned Additional Advocate General that earlier the detention order was quashed on the technical ground to the effect that grounds of detention included certain cases in which the accused stood acquitted. The District Magistrate after excluding the said cases was still satisfied that looking to the nefarious activities of the detenu, it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. ( 5 ) WE have considered the rival contentions. The Apex Court in Chhagan Bhagwans case (supra) held that when a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a 2. AIR 1989 SC 1234 . whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule, it nullifies the entire order. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the order of detention does not contain any fresh facts. whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule, it nullifies the entire order. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the order of detention does not contain any fresh facts. The impugned order of detention has been passed taking into consideration the earlier grounds of detention, which grounds has been nullified by this Court issuing a prerogative writ of habeas corpus. We are of the view that once the order of detention has been set aside by this Court in a habeas corpus petition, the detaining Authority ought not to have taken into consideration the said grounds either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention to reach at the subjective satisfaction for detention of the person concerned. It is only on the basis of the fresh facts, which have arisen after revoking Le. cancelling or expiring the earlier order, which can be taken note of while passing an order of detention. It is not the number of cases, which is relevant. Even a solitary act of omission or commission can be taken into consideration fur being subjectively satisfied by the detaining Authority to pass an order of detention if the reach effect and potentiality of the act is such that it disturbs public tranquillity by creating terror and panic in the society or considerable number of people in a specified locality, where the act is alleged to have been committed. ( 7 ) WE are satisfied that the impugned order of detention deserves to be setaside on the aforesaid ground alone. In view of this, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other contentions. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition and quash and set aside the order of detention passed against petitioner Bhagwat Singh by the District Magistrate, Udaipur dated 7/6/2002 (Annex. 1) and also the order dated 22/7/2002 (Anne. 5) confirming the detention. We direct that petitioner Bhagwat. Singh shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Petition allowed.