Fresh preventive detention on the same grounds barred after revocation or Advisory Board release under constitutional safeguards.

A fresh detention order under COFEPOSA could not be made on the same grounds after revocation of the earlier order where the revocation fell outside Section 11(1) of the Act. The HC held that Section 11(2) permits a further detention order only in the situations covered by Section 11(1), so a revocation under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act did not authorise renewed detention. It also held that release following an adverse Advisory Board opinion under Section 8(f), read with Article 22(4), is a mandatory constitutional safeguard, and a second detention on identical material would defeat that protection. The challenge succeeded and immediate release was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh order of detention could be passed against the same detenu after revocation of the earlier detention order under the preventive detention law, including where revocation was under the General Clauses Act or under the statutory duty arising from the Advisory Board's adverse opinion.

Analysis: The Court held that the power to make another detention order under Section 11(2) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act is confined to cases where revocation falls within the situations contemplated by Section 11(1). A revocation made by the State Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was treated as outside Section 11(1), and revocation under Section 8(f) after an adverse Advisory Board report was treated as a mandatory release mechanism carrying the constitutional safeguard in Article 22(4). The Court further held that to permit a second detention order on the same grounds after such release would undermine the constitutional protection against continued detention without Advisory Board approval, and that the confidentiality of the Advisory Board report could not be used to justify a fresh detention on the same material.

Conclusion: A fresh detention order on the same grounds could not be passed in either case; the challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The detenus were entitled to immediate release, and both writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to make a fresh detention order under Section 11(2) is available only where the earlier revocation falls within Section 11(1), and a second detention on the same grounds cannot follow a release mandated by Article 22(4) and Section 8(f) unless there are genuinely fresh grounds.

---