JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned is order no.63/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 6th July 2017, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby one Sheikh Imran son of Sheikh Anayatullah resident of Peer Mohalla, Zaloora, Bomai, District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention, on the grounds set out in the petition in hand. 2. Reply affidavit has been filed by respondents, resisting the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter 4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that detenu cannot be detained again under the provisions of Public Safety Act, unless fresh facts come into existence, which would warrant his further detention. Detenu, according to learned counsel, was detained vide detention order no.238/DMB/PSA/ 2016 dated 21st January 2017, which was quashed by this Court vide judgement dated 7th June 2017 in HCP no.58/2017. However detenu was not released and was re-arrested in case FIR no.496/2016 and thereafter placed under preventive detention in terms of order, impugned in this petition. His further submission is that grounds of detention, pressed into service to place detenu under preventive detention, are identical to grounds of detention in support of earlier detention order, which stands quashed by this Court, which is suggestive of the fact of non-application of mind on part of detaining authority. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision rendered in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (2011) 5 SCC 244 and judgement dated 23rd May 2017 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA(HC) no.22/2017 titled Bilal Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K and another. 5. This Court, in earlier petition (HCP No.58/2017), wherein detention order no.238/DMB/PSA/ 2016 dated 21st January 2017, was put to challenge, quashed detention order, while dealing with grounds of detention made use of in support of the said detention order. The same grounds could not have been relied upon for making a fresh detention order. The authoritative judicial pronouncements on the subject are that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. The same grounds could not have been relied upon for making a fresh detention order. The authoritative judicial pronouncements on the subject are that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. When a detention order is quashed by the Court, issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds of said detention order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with fresh grounds of detention for drawing requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh detention order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule, it nullifies the entire order. It is, therefore, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the Court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming subjective satisfaction by detaining authority in making a detention order, the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no consequence if further fresh facts, disclosed in the grounds of impugned detention order, have been considered. Reference in this regard is made to Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna and others AIR 1989 SC 1234 ; Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. The Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another AIR 1989 SC 1812 ; Ramesh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 1881 . Detention order, impugned herein, is, thus, liable to be quashed as the grounds of detention made use of by respondent No.2 while passing earlier detention order, subsequently quashed by this Court, have been pressed into service while passing detention order in question. 6. In view of aforesaid discussion, petition is disposed of and detention order no.63/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 6th July 2017, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla, quashed. Respondents are directed to release the detenu, namely, Sheikh Imran son of Sheikh Anayatullah resident of Peer Mohalla, Zaloora, Bomai, District Baramulla, forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 7. Record be returned to counsel for respondents.