JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Kumar Udai Bhanu Rai, learned Government Advocate No. 4. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to quash the order of detention passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioner under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit(s) and have supported the grounds of detention. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The respondent authorities suspected one Nawal Singh, Vyas Prasad (the present petitioner), and his son Umesh Prasad, of illegally exporting foodgrains to Nepal by road. Therefore, the impugned order of detention was issued on 9.4.2009 (Annexure-1), under the provisions of Section 3(i) of the Act, read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate submissions in support of the writ petition. We do not propose to note his submissions, let alone dealing with the same, because the writ petition can be disposed of on one short ground. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears on a perusal of the ground of detention that one Nawal Singh, "so-called" proprietor of M/s Kuber Bhandar has been found involved in abetting the act of smuggling of prohibited items to Nepal. Umesh Prasad, the son of the present petitioner, was also involved in smuggling of illegal export of foodgrains from India to Nepal. The ground of detention further states that Umesh Prasad was using the landline telephone number of the present petitioner which is the sole ground for the petitioners involvement in illegal export of foodgrains leading to the impugned order of detention. It appears to us that misuse of the landline telephone by Umesh Prasad in the name of the present petitioner is a tenuous ground to preventively detain the present petitioner. It is a possible situation that the father and his son may be living together and the wayward son may be surreptitiously using the landline connection in the name of his father. We are unable to sustain the ground for preventive detention of the petitioner. It is a possible situation that the father and his son may be living together and the wayward son may be surreptitiously using the landline connection in the name of his father. We are unable to sustain the ground for preventive detention of the petitioner. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was aiding or abetting Umesh Prasad or Nawal Singh in illegal export of foodgrains. Furthermore, the present petitioner has already been in detention since 9.4.2009. 5. In the result, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner.