JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Pursuant to order of detention bearing No. 01/DMA/PSA/DET/2015, dated 17th June, 2015, detenue (Azad Ahmad Malik) has been taken into preventive custody. Father of the detenue has filed the instant petition seeking its quashment. Despite repeated opportunities reply has not been filed, as a result whereof, pursuant to the order dated 27th August, 2015 petition has been directed to be listed for final hearing, as such, has been listed today. Petitioner submits that another person namely Sh. Aashiq Hussain Ganai was also taken into preventive custody on the same grounds who too had challenged the order of detention by medium of HCP No. 36/2015 titled Aashiq Hussain Ganai v. State of J & K and others decided on 19th August, 2015. The order of detention has been quashed on similar grounds, instant petition also deserves to be accepted. The petitioner has produced the photocopy of the judgment as rendered in the case of Aashiq Hussain Ganai v. State of J & K and others, same is taken on records. 2. In the above referred judgment, the grounds have been noticed, in Para 5 similar grounds for detention are recorded in the grounds of detention in the instant petition. Both detenue as well as another person namely Aashiq Hussain Ganai was involved in the case registered as F.I.R. No. 104/2015 under Section 13 ULA (P) Act, Police Station, Bijbehara. Learned Coordinate Bench noticing that the detenue had neither applied for bail nor any cogent ground has been given which would show that there were compelling circumstances for passing the order of detention. In addition thereto, while relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled G.M. Shah v. State of J & K reported in AIR 1980 SC 494 , it has been concluded that the detaining authority has not applied the mind while passing the order of detention, why so, because in the order of detention it was recorded that the detenue was required to be taken into custody so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of law and public order. Similarly in the impugned order of detention pursuant to which the detenue in the instant petition has been taken into custody, same wording has been employed which would suggest that the detaining authority has not been sure as to whether the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the security of the State or were detrimental to the maintenance of law and public order. It shall be advantageous to quote the following para from the above referred judgment: "As observed by Hidayatullah, J (as he then was in Dr. Ram Manohar-Lohia V. State of Bihar and Ors. One has to imagine three concentric circles, in order to understand the meaning and import of the above expressions. 'Law and order' represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing "public order" and the smallest circle represents "security of State". It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of State. It is in view of the above distinction, the Act defines the expressions "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State" and "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" separately. An order of detention made either on the basis that the detaining authority is satisfied that the person against whom the order is being made is acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or on the basis that he is satisfied that such person is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but which is attempted to be supported by placing reliance on both the bases in the grounds furnished to the detenue has to be held to be an illegal one vide decisions of this Court in Bhupal Chandra Ghosh v. Arif Ali and Ors. (2) and Satya Brata Ghose v. Arif Ali and Ors. (3). 3. Liberty is precious, curtailment may be imperative but for curtailing the liberty, the detaining authority has to derive subjective satisfaction which would demonstrate that preventive custody was unavoidable. Human right more particularly liberty is very precious. Authorities may have to pass such orders but while doing so, have to be alive to the position i.e. to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are not offended in any manner. Human right more particularly liberty is very precious. Authorities may have to pass such orders but while doing so, have to be alive to the position i.e. to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are not offended in any manner. Passing of order of detention is not a routine matter. 4. Many other grounds have been projected in the petition, since the order of detention does not survive on two important counts: (a) That the detaining authority has not recorded reasons which compelled him to pass order of detention, when the accused was in custody in connection with the case registered against him. It is trite that order of detention can be passed even if a person is in custody in connection with any other criminal case but for that special circumstances and the reasons are to be recorded which in the present case are wanted. (b) The wording employed in the order of detention to the following effect "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of law and public" would demonstrate that perhaps detaining authority was not aware what is inherent distinction between the two and has not been sure as to whether alleged activities of the detenue prejudicial to the security of the State or were prejudicial to the maintenance of law and public order which in turn would show that the detaining authority has simply acted as mouth piece for giving effect to what had been recommended by the police. 5. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove squarely applies to the case of the petitioner. So, order of detention impugned has to be held to be unwarranted and inconsistent with the provisions of the law, as such, quashed. Detenue shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Petition accordingly disposed of.