Collateral challenge to detention barred after SAFEMA forfeiture when the detention order was not earlier successfully questioned.

A detention order that has already formed the basis for a forfeiture order under SAFEMA cannot later be assailed collaterally in writ proceedings where it was not successfully challenged while in force. The Court treated the completed forfeiture action as barring a subsequent attack on the underlying detention order by the detenue or related persons, absent any applicable statutory exception. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order, after a forfeiture order has been passed under SAFEMA and the detention was not earlier challenged successfully, can still be assailed in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The order of detention had already formed the basis for action under SAFEMA and a forfeiture order had been passed under Section 7 of that Act. The respondent had not challenged the forfeiture order. In view of the settled principle that once an order of detention serves as the foundation for applying SAFEMA, and the detenue or his relatives and associates did not successfully challenge that detention when it was in force, its validity cannot later be questioned collaterally when it is used as the basis for forfeiture, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: A completed forfeiture action under SAFEMA bars a subsequent collateral challenge to the underlying detention order in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of detention that has become the basis for action under SAFEMA cannot be challenged later by the detenue or his relatives and associates if it was not successfully questioned while in force and does not fall within the statutory exceptions.

---