Subsisting detention order is essential for SAFEMA proceedings; revoked detention cannot sustain a notice.

A SAFEMA show cause notice based on a detention order that had already been revoked could not be sustained, because the Act applies only where a valid and subsisting detention order exists. The revocation of detention under COFEPOSA and the General Clauses Act was effective in law even if it was not expressed in the exact language of SAFEMA's proviso. Once the detention order ceased to exist, the jurisdictional foundation for SAFEMA proceedings disappeared, and the notice was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice under SAFEMA could be sustained when the detention order had been revoked before the notice and whether such revocation, though made under the general revocation power, prevented the application of SAFEMA.

Analysis: The notice under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA was founded on a detention order that had already been revoked. The statutory scheme in section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA makes the existence of a valid and subsisting detention order a condition for the Act's application, and the revocation clauses in the proviso deal with the timing and subsistence of such detention. The Court held that revocation under section 11 of COFEPOSA and section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be ignored merely because it is not described in the exact language of the proviso, since once the detention order is lawfully revoked it ceases to exist in law. In the absence of a subsisting detention order, the jurisdictional basis for initiating SAFEMA proceedings failed.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

---