TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleging that her husband has been unauthorisedly detained and the detention order passed was illegal and sought his release. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 28th October, 2013 stating that until and unless the competent Court of law decides the order of detention as illegal and invalid, it cannot be said that it is unauthorized detention. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 2) issued a preventive detention order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the recommendation of the Collector and after obtaining a report from the Advisory Board, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Rt. No. 4803, dated 6th November, 2013 and directed detention of the detenu for a period of twelve months from the date on which he was detained i.e. 5th October, 2013. 7. When the Appellant challenged the detention of her husband before the High Court in a habeas corpus Writ Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order. In our considered view, when habeas corpus writ petition is filed, even though the Petitioner has not properly framed the petition and not sought appropriate relief, it is expected from the Court to at least go into the issue and decide on merits. Normally, in such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment has the power to pass a detention order to detain a person at a stretch for a period of 12 months under the provisions of the Act. 11. To answer the above issue, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the detention of certain category of persons, as defined under the Act. Apart from conferring of power, the section regulates the manner of passing the orders of detention as well as their duration. It reads thus: Section 3: Power to make orders detaining certain persons: (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or Commissioner of Police are the authorities, conferred with the power to pass orders of detention. The only difference is that the order of detention passed by the Government would remain in force for a period of three months in the first Instance, whereas similar orders passed by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police shall remain in force for an initial period of 12 days. The continuance of detention beyond 12 days would depend upon the approval to be accorded by the Government in this regard. Sub-section (3) makes this aspect very clear. Section 13 of the Act mandates that the maximum period of detention under the Act is 12 months. 13. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is very clear in its purport, as to the ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament Under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (7); or (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament Under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (7). 15. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. When the provisions of Section 3 of the Act clearly mandated the authorities to pass an order of detention at one time for a period not exceeding three months only, the Government Order in the ....