http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: HAR JAS DEV SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1973

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN KHANNA, HANS RAJ KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2469            1974 SCR  (1) 281  1973 SCC  (2) 575  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 444  (21)  F          1985 SC1082  (15)  D          1989 SC1234  (9)

ACT: Maintenance  of Internal Security Act, (26 of  1971)-Section 14(2)-Fresh facts, what are-Order of detention served  while in confinement under Official Secrets Act-Order subsequently revoked-Thereafter   released   on  ball-Second   order   of detention  on  identical  grounds-If  release  on  bail  and variation  in the enumeration of prejudicial acts amount  to fresh facts.

HEADNOTE: While  the petitioner was in confinement under section 3  of the  Official Secrets Act. 1923 an order of detention,  made under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971,  was served on him.  The order expired since that  was not  approved  by  the  State  government.   Thereafter  the petitioner was released on bail.  After his release on  bail a  fresh order of detention was passed.  The  detention  was approved  by  the Advisory Board and  the  State  Government confirmed the order. The  grounds  of  detention served on  the  petitioner  were identical  with  the  grounds on which the  first  order  of detention was based except at ground No. 7 stated that since the  petitioner  was  released  on bail  he  was  likely  to continue  his  spying  activities  which  would  be   highly prejudicial   to  the  security  of  the   State.    Another difference  was  that  in  the  first  order  of   detention "Security of the State’ and maintenance of Public Order were mentioned  but  in the second order only,  security  of  the State" was mentioned. The petitioner urged that since the grounds which formed the basis  of the first order of detention were  identical  with the  grounds for detaining him under the  subsequent  order, the latter order was bad and his detention was illegal.  The respondent-State contended that since the petitioner was  in jail at the time when the first order was served on him  and revoked, his subsequent release on bail constituted a  fresh fact.  It was further urged on behalf of the State that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Act  made a distinction between grounds and facts  and  that while grounds must have a nexus with the object of the order of detention facts stated therein need not necessarily  have that nexus. On  the question whether the two variations from  the  first order  of  detention  can  be  construed  as  "fresh  facts" justifying  the  impugned detention within  the  meaning  of section 14(2) of the Act. [289E] HELD  :  There being no fresh facts on  which  the  impugned detention  order  is  made  the order  is  invalid  and  the detention  of the petitioner cannot be sustained had  arisen on  the basis of which the Central Government or  the  State Government or an Officer, as the case may be, was  satisfied that  such an order should be made the subsequent  detention on the very same grounds would be invalid. [287C] Masood  v. Union, W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972  decided  Jan. 11,  1973;  Hadt Bardu Das v. District Magistrate  [1969]  1 S.C.R. 227 referred to. (ii).While it is true that ’grounds’ and "facts" are used in opposition to each other, they must be taken as referring to two  different things.  The grounds are conclusions of  fact or  reasons  which have induced the detailing  authority  to pass  the order of detention.  These are sometimes  referred to as basic facts.  Facts, however, constitute the  evidence upon  which  the conclusions justifying  the  detention  are made. [288B] State  of Bombay v. Atma Ram Vaidya [1951] S.C.R.  157;  Ram Krishan v. State of Delhi [1953] S.C.R. 708 referred to. 282 There may be facts which are not germane or are not relevant to the grounds justifying the detention and when section  14 refers to "fresh facts" it does not refer to facts which are not relevant but or such fresh facts on which the  detaining authority is satisfied that an order of detention should  be made  if  the  fresh  facts  cannot  form  the  basis  of  a conclusion  on which the detention order can be  made,  then those  facts  are  not fresh facts which  will  justify  the detaining authority to make an order of detention.  A  fresh order  of detention can only be made if fresh  grounds  came into existence after the expiry or revocation of the earlier order  of  detention.  No fresh order could be made  on  the ground which existed prior to the revocation or expiry of an earlier order of detention.  Parliament has enacted  section 14 in order to prevent such a contingency. [288E] Massod v. Union of India W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972 decided on Jan. 11, 1973. (iii).....The  release  of  the  detenu  on  bail  does  not constitute  fresh  facts  as  would  justify  the   impugned detention order.  Both the detention orders are passed under s.  13(1)(a)(ii)  which set out the prejudicial  acts  under which the suspected actions of the detenu will fall and  for which  the detention is made.  It is immaterial whether  the detaining  authority is satisfied that the grounds on  which the  detention is being made for preventing the detenu  from acting  in  any manner prejudicial to the  security  of  the State  or the maintenance of public order or for  preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State alone, because, in either case, one of the objects is to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to  the  security  of  the  State.   The  variation  in  the enumeration of prejudicial acts has nothing to do with fresh facts. [289B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 93 of 1973. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. R. K. fain, for the petitioner. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1  to 4 & 7. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The petitioner challenges the order  of detention  dated  March,  28, 1972 made under s.  3  of  the Maintenance  of  Internal  Security  Act  No.  26  of  1971- hereinafter  called  ’the Act’.  Initially he  was  arrested under the Official Secrets Act, 19 of 1923, and was remanded by  the  Magistrate on October 24, 1971.   On  November  19, 1971,  the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur made an  order  of detention  under  s. 3 of the Act which was  served  on  the petitioner  while he was still in confinement under s. 3  of the  Official  Secrets  Act.  He was also  served  with  the grounds  of  the  detention.   The  Order  of  the  District Magistrate,  however,  was not approved by  the  State  Gov- ernment  and the petitioner was directed to be  released  in respect  of  his detention under the  Act.   The  petitioner thereafter  moved  the  Sessions  Judge  for  bail  and  was directed on March 2, 1972 to be released on his executing  a bail  bond of Rs. 50,000/-.  The bail bond furnished by  him was  accepted by the Sessions Court on March 14,  1972,  on. which  date  of the petitioner was released from  jail.   On March 28. 1972, a fresh order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, which order was approved  by the  State Government on April 4. 1972.  It is alleged  that from March 14, 1972 to February 12, 1973 the petitioner  did not appear before the Court in spite of repeated  directions and undertakings given by his counsel.  His application  for exemption-from appearance was refused and thereafter on 283 August  17, 1972 an application was made for  taking  action against him under s. 7 of the Act.  On February 6, 1973  the detenu  was  declared a proclaimed offender.  On  March  12, 1973  he was arrested in Delhi and produced before  a  Delhi Magistrate  who granted a transit remand for being  produced before  the  Court at Batala and  was  accordingly  produced before  him  on  March 14, 1973.  On  March  15,  1973,  the detention  order  dated March 28, 1972, was served  on  him. Representations made by him were rejected by the  Government on  April  10,  1973, and finally on  April  30,  1973,  his detention  was  approved by the Advisory Board.   The  State Government confirmed the order of detention. The contentions urged before us are better appreciated by  a perusal of the grounds of detention.  There are :               "1.  That  you,  Harjasdev  Singh  s/o  Ujagar               Singh,   Jat   r/o   village   Talwara,    p/s               Srihargobindpur  born  on 15-4-41  in  village               Talwara  matriculated in 1962 joined  Military               Service  on 28-8-63 as Sepoy Clerk  and  later               proomted  as Havaldar Clerk in November,  1968               are  Indian National.  In Feb., 1967 when  you               were transferred to 10th Infantry Div.  Hq  at               Suianpur  and remained there till  July,  1970               During this period, you, Hariasdev Singh  have               been collecting information regarding military               units   and   conveying  the   Same   to   Pak               Intelligence  Services.  In return.  you  were               suitably rewarded by the Pakistan officers and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             in  support of this, the following facts  have               been duly proved against you :-               (i)...That during Oct., 1969, one Pritam Singh               Jat  r/o  Baleem p/s KalanaUr allured  you  to               indulge in espionage activities against  India               and give him Military intelligence and  secret               documents  for passing on the same to his  Pak               masters   for   which  you   would   be   paid               handsomely.   You felt tempted and  gave  your               consent to do the job.  Pritam Singh gave  you               Rs.  60/- and promised to come after  a  week.               Pritam Singh again met you after about a  week               and  you  handed over to him a typed  list  of               units  uder  10th  Infantry  Div.  with  their               location-,.   You were paid Rs. 100/- more  by               Pritam Singh for this Job.               (ii)..Again  in the Month of Nov.,  1969,  the               abovesaid  Pritam  Singh,  contacted  you   at               Sujanpur  and  paid  you  Rs.  100/-  as  your               remuneration for supplying the list of  staff               officers at 10th Infantry Div.  HQ at Sujanpur               and also one Sketch on tracing paper regarding               Road routes from Pathapkot to Akhnoor.               (iii).Again  in  the  month  Dec.,  1969,  you               supplied 10th Infantry Div.  Exercise  paper-,               to Pritam Singh who promised to compensate you               for this after receiving payment from his  Pak               masters.               (iv)..That in Nov., 1970 when you were  posted               in  ’A’  branch  HQ  67  Independent  Tnfantry               Brigade Company at Abohar, you were discharged               from the Army due to your bad record.               284                "2.  That during May/June, 1971 Pritam  Singh               who  was  on  one month leave  from  the  26th               Battalion  to  Shuk-argarh,  Distt.    Sialkot               (Pakistan)  and  produced  you  before   Major               Akhtar and Sub.  Zafar there.  You along  with               Pritam Singh crossed the border from the  left               side  of Indian Picket Bohar Wadala onward  by               the side of Dhussi band and reached Pak Picket               Takhatpur,  wherefrom  you were taken  to  Pak               Security Office, Shakargarh in a jeep by  Sub.               Zafar.   There  Major Akhtar and  Sub.   Zafar               talked  with you in seclusion.  You  gave  out               all the details of 10th infantry Div. to  your               knowledge to the Major.  Your particulars were               noted  down  on a printed form which  was               got  signed  by  you and  you  were  also  got               photographed.   You  passed on  the  following               documents and Military Intelligence to the Pak               Security Officers : -               (i)...Deployment statement of the Units  under               25  Div. and other connected with units  other               than those under 25 Div.               (ii)..There was no movement of the Army  Units               in Dera Baba Nanak and Gurdaspur areas at that               time.               The   Major  gave  you  Rs.  200/-   as   your               remuneration  and assigned you following  task               :-               (i)...To   collect   information   about   the               postings  and trainings of the Officers  under               10 Infantry Div.               (ii)  To  collect  any secret  or  top  secret

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             documents from               any army...Officer.               (iii) To  collect any pamphlet about the  Army               training               or  containing technical number of the  Indian               Army Units.               Both  you and Pritam Singh thereafter  crossed               over to India via the same route.               3.....In  the month of Sept., 1971  you  alone               crossed the Border via the same old route  and               met Major Akhtar and Sub.  Zafar at Shakargarh               and  furnished  the  following  documents  and               Military information to them :-               (i)...Ammunition  scale of the units under  10               Infantry Div.               (ii)..One Pamphlet about the technical numbers               of  the Army Divisions, Brigades and units  of               Indian Army.               (iii).About  posting of Major General  Jaswant               Singh as 10 Inf.  Div.  Commander.               (iv)..About movement of No. 10 Inf.  Div.   HQ               from  its previous headquarter at Sujanpur  to               the  left  side  of the  Dalbousie  Road  near               Pathankot in the newly constructed barracks.               You  were paid Rs. 200/- for this service  and               further allotted the following task --               285               (i)...To   collect   information   about   the               construction   work  of  Railway   line   from               Pathankot to Jammu via Kathua.               (ii)..1300  MM  gun supplied  by  Russia  with               which  of the Indian Army and the location  of               that Unit.               (iii).Location of 4 House Units.               (iv)  To collect Army new or old Photo of  any               V.I.P. about his visit at 10 Inf.  Div.  HQ or               any unit under the Div.               You  were then made to cross to India  with  a               Pak national named Akhtar who was appointed  a               courier for collecting documents and  military               intelligence from you.               4.That   you   along   with   Akhtar   reached               Pathankot.  Akhtar stayed there while you left               for   your  village.   After  two  days,   you               returned  to  Pathankot and  gave  Akhtar  the               following  documents to be delivered  to  your               Pak masters.               (i)...Three  photos of Sh.  Swaran  Singh  the               then  Defence  Minister of  V.I.P.  visits  in               Akhnoor  sector  in  3  different  poses  with               G.O.C. 10th inf.  Div.               (ii)..Location statement of the units under 26               Inf.  Div. and connected units.               (iii).Two   sketches  on  tracing  papers   of               obstacle  plan of Akhnoor- Sector-part  I  and               part II.               (iv)..4  House  unit  moved  from  Patiala  to               Madhopur area.               5.....That  on 23-10-71 you were  arrested  by               the  local police of p/s Srihargobindpur  from               your house in case FIR No. 178 u/s 30 S.  Act.               On   search  of  your  house,  the   following               documents  in connection with your  activities               prejudidical  to  the Security of  State  were               recovered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

             (i)...A list typed in English of Officers ACRS               to be reviewed by the Brigade Commander.               (ii)..One white paper i.e. printed letter  pad               of  HQ  Ambala Sub Area,  Ambala  Cantt.  with               formation sign of the Sub Area units.               (iii).A  rough  sketch  about  the  road  from               Batala   Dera  Baba   Nanak-Kalanaur   towards               village Pakiwan showing some villages prepared               by   you  to  go  to  and  from  Pakistan   in               connection  with  your  espionage  activities,               incriminating  documents,  along  with   other               papers.               6.....That  on  interrogation  you  have  been               found to be a pak Spy.               7.....That in case FIR No. 178 referred to  in               Para  5 above, you have been released on  bail               by the District and Sessions Judge,  Gurdaspur               and  it is now likely that you  will  continue               your   spying  activities  for  the   Pakistan               Intelligence  services or by crossing over  to               Pakistan,   you   are   likely   to    divulge               intelligence   collected  by  you  about   our               National vital               286               installations,  Military formations and  Civil               Defence forces, to Pak authorities which would               be  highly prejudicial to the security of  the               State in these days of Pak hostilities. It  was first contended that as no return was filed  by  the State  Government, the petitioner is entitled to be  set  at liberty  under r. 5 of O. XXXV of the Supreme  Court  Rules; secondly, there is no nexus between the object of the  order of  detention  and  the grounds  of  detention;  thirdly,  a perusal  of the grounds of detention will disclose that  the order is really made under s. 3 (,1 ) (a) (i) of the Act and not  under s. 3 (1) (a) (ii) under which it is purported  to be made, inasmuch a,,,, the acts alleged against the  detenu would justify an order being made to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and cannot justify  an  order  against him from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial to the Security of the State or the  maintenance of  public  order.   Finally, it was urged  that  since  the grounds  which  formed the basis of the order  of  detention served on him on November 19, 1971 (hereinafter referred  to as  the  first  order) are identical with  the  grounds  for detaining  him under the impugned order, the impugned  order is bad and his detention illegal. Taking  the last point first it is not disputed  except  for ground No. 7, that the grounds of detention first served  on the  petitioner on November 19, 1971 are identical with  the grounds  on which the impugned order of detention  is  made. There is, however, another minor difference between the  two orders  in  that though the grounds mentioned  in  both  the orders  set out that the petitioner has been detained  under S. 3 (1) (a) (ii) the grounds in the first order state  that the  detention  of’ the petitioner was to prevent  him  from indulging  in any manner prejudicial to the security of  the State  or maintenance of public order, while the grounds  in the  impugned order merely state that it was to prevent  the petitioner  from  acting in any manner  prejudicial  to  the security of the state only.  The question is, whether  these two  variations  from the first order can  be  construed  as ’fresh  facts’ justifying the impugned detention within  the meaning of S. 14(2) of the Act wherein it is provided;               "The revocation or expiry of a detention order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

             shall not bar the making of a fresh  detention               order under section 3 against the same  person               in  any  case where fresh  facts  have  arisen               after  the  date of revocation  or  expiry  on               which  the  Central  Government  or  a   State               Government or an officer, as the case may  be,               is  satisfied  that such an  order  should  be               made." There  is no doubt that since the first order  of  detention dated  November  19,  1971 was not  approved  by  the  State Government  that  Order of detention ceased  to  have  force after 12 days from the date of the Order and that  detention order  had therefore expired on December 1, 1971.   Even  if the  first order was revoked due to a technical  defect  the same  result  follows.   In  Hadi  Bandhu  Das  v.  District Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr.(1) it was urged on the  analogous provisions of the Preventive (1)  [1969] 1 S. C. R. 227 2 8 7 Detention Act 4 of 1950 that a detaining authority may issue a  fresh,.  order after revocation of an  earlier  order  of detention  if the previous order was defective in  point  of form or had become unenforceable in consequence of a failure to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act. Negativing this contention the Court observed at pp.   ’233- 234  "there is nothing in s. 13(2) which indicates that  the expression  "revocation" means only revocation of  an  order which  is  otherwise  valid and operative  :  apparently  it includes  cancellation  of  all orders-invalid  as  well  as valid".  In these circumstances after the date on which  the order  ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts had  arisen on the basis of which the Central Government or a State Gov- ernment  or  an officer, as the case may be,  was  satisfied that such an order should be, made, the subsequent detention on  the very same grounds would be invalid.  This Court  has in  Masood  Alam etc. v. Union of India & Others(1)  has  so held.  In that case the detenu was arrested on June 15, 1972 pursuant  to an order of detention dated June 14, 1972  made by the District Magistrate under s. (1) (a) (i) and (ii)  of the  Act.  The Government in that case also did  not  accord its approval for the, petitioner’s detention as required  by s.  3  (3) of the Act and an order of release was  made  and served  on the detenu who was confined in jail as an  under- trial  under s. 107//117 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure. A fresh order of detention was again passed on the same day, namely,  June 25, 1972 the grounds of which were  identical. Several  contentions were urged before this Court, but  that which  found  favour with it was that the earlier  order  of detention was either revoked or had expired with the  result that  unless the detention pursuant to the Order dated  June 25,  1972 is passed on fresh facts arising after the  expiry or  revocation of the earlier order, it must be held  to  be invalid, in support of this conclusion two decisions of this Court in Hadi Bandhu Das v. District Magistrate,  Cuttack(2) referred, to earlier, and Kshetra Gogoi v. State of Assam(3) decided  under s. 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act  (IV of  1950) which is identical with s. 14(2) of the  Act  were referred to. The  learned  Advocate  for the  respondent-State  has  made strenuous  attempt  to distinguish Masood  Alam’s  (1)  case firstly,,  on  the ground that since the petitioner  was  in jail at the time when the first order was served on him  and revoked,  his subsequent release on bail by the  District  & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, constituted a fresh fact as  hip, release was likely to enable the petitioner to continue  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

spying  activities for Pakistan Intelligence Service  or  to cross  over  to  Pakistan  for  divulging  the  intelligence collected  by him concerning vital  installations,  Military formations and Civil Defence ’Forcec to Pakistan authorities which  would  be highly prejudicial to the security  of  the State.  The argument of the petitioner’s Advocate that fresh fact or fact,, must be such as would provide a nexus between the  object  of the order of detention and  the  grounds  of detention, was sought to be controverted by the State on the ground  that the Act made a difference, between the  grounds and  facts which are two different  connotation,,  conveving different  concepts.   It was urged that while  ground  must have a nexus. (1)  W.P.S.  Ncs. 469 & 470 of 1972 d-cided on  January  11, 1973. (2)  [1969] 1 SCR 217 (3)  [1970] 2 SCR 517 288 with  the  object of the order of  detention,  facts  stated therein  need not necessarily have that nexus.  We  find  it difficult to accept this distinction.  While it is true that in  s. 8 of the Act as also in its other  provisions  ground and facts are used in opposition to each other, they must be taken as referring to two different things.  The grounds are conclusions  of  fact  or reasons  which  have  induced  the detaining   authority  to  pass  the  order  of   detention. Sometimes  these  are referred to as  basic  facts.   Facts, however, constitute the evidence upon which the  conclusions justifying  the  detention are made. In State of  Bombay  v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (1), it was observed-"By their  very nature  the  grounds  are conclusions of  facts  and  not  a complete detailed recital of all the facts.  The conclusions drawn  from  the available facts will show in which  of  the three categories of prejudicial acts ,the suspected activity of  the  particular  person is considered  to  fall.   These conclusions are the "grounds" and they must be supplied.  No -part  of such "grounds" can be held back nor-can  any  more "grounds"  be added thereto.  What must be supplied are  the "grounds"  on  which the order has been  made  and  "nothing less."  The  detenu, however, is not entitled  to  know  the evidence, nor the source of the information, but he must  be furnished  with sufficient particulars or facts i.e.  suffi- cient  details to enable him to make out a case if  he  can, for the consideration of the detaining authority.  Also  see Ram Krishan v. State of Delhi(2). There may be facts which are not germane or are not relevant to  the  grounds  justifying the detention and  when  s.  14 refers  to fresh facts it does not refer to facts which  are not relevant, but to such fresh facts on which the detaining authority is satisfied that an order of detention should be made.   If  the  fresh facts cannot form  the  basis  for  a conclusion  on which the detention order can be  made,  then those facts  are not fresh facts which  will  justify  the detaining authority to make an order of detention.  If  the contention  of the learned Advocate for the State  that  the release on bail of the petitioner by the District & Sessions Judge,  constitutes  fresh  facts  which  would  furnish  an ,opportunity  to the detenu to act in a manner prejudice  to the  security  ,of the State or the  maintenance  of  public order,  then  the same arguinent can be availed of  for  any subsequent detention on the same facts and grounds after the detenu  has  been released on the expiry of the  period  for which  be  was  detained  or  after  the  earlier  order  of detention  has  been  revoked, because in  both  the  cases, namely,  where  the Government has refused  to  confirm  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

order  of detention as well as on the expiry of  the  period for  which  the detenu has been detained and  the  detention order  has expired, the likelihood of the detenu  continuing to  act  in any manner prejudicial to the  securitY  of  the State  etc. can be said to exist and those would  furnish  a cause for making a fresh detention order.  A fresh order  of detention  can  only  be made if  fresh  grounds  come  into existence,  after  the expiry of revocation of  the  earlier order  of detention.  No such fresh order could be  made  on the ’ground which existed prior to the revocation or  expiry of the earlier order of detention.  In order to prevent such a  contingency Parliament has enacted s. 14 of the  Act  and this Court dealing with such a contingency in Masood  Alam’s (supra) case already referred to observed : (1)  [1951] S. C.R. 167 at 178. (2) [1953] S. C.  R. 708. 289 "It is to effectuate this restriction on the maximum  period and   to  ensure  that  it  is  not  rendered  nugatory   or ineffective by resorting to the camouflage of making a fresh order  operative  soon  after the expiry at  the  period  of detention,  as also to minimise resort to  detention  orders that s. 14 restricts the detention of a person on given  set of  facts to the original order and does not permit a  fresh order  to  be  made  oil the  same  grounds  which  were  in existence  when  the original order was made".   We  do  not think that the release of the detenu on bail by the Sessions Court  would  constitute fresh facts as  would  justify  the impugned detention order, nor is there any substance in  the contention  that since in the first order of  detention  the security  of the State and the maintenance of  public  order were  mentioned and in the second order merely the  security of the State was mentioned, they can be considered as  fresh facts.  Both the detention orders are passed under s. 3 (  1 ) (a) (ii).....which  set  out the  prejudicial  acts  under which the suspected actions of the detenu will fall and  for which  the detention is made, It is immaterial  whether  the detaining  authority is satisfied that the grounds on  which the  detention is being made for preventing the detenu  from acting  in  any manner prejudicial to the  security  of  the State or the maintenance of public order, or for  preventing him  from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security  of the State alone, because in either case, one of the  objects is to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to  the  security  of  the  State.   The  variation  in  the enumeration of the prejudicial acts have nothing to do  with fresh facts. There  being no fresh facts on which the impugned  detention order  is made, that order is invalid and the  detention  of the  petitioner  cannot be sustained.  In the view  we  have taken,   it  is  not  necessary  to  deal  with  the   other contentions.   The  petitioner is directed  to  be  released forthwith. K.B.N. 290