1989 (11) TMI 319 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition without surrender.
2. Validity of the detention order under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.
3. Non-approval of the detention order by the State Government within the statutory period.
4. Non-reference of the appellant's case to the Advisory Board.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellant challenged the High Court's dismissal of his writ petition on the grounds that there were no extraordinary reasons to depart from the normal rule that the appellant should first surrender before seeking relief. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's submission that his fundamental right to liberty was threatened and that the High Court should have considered the subsequent events brought to its notice through a Miscellaneous application. The Court referred to precedents from the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, which supported the view that an illegal order of detention could be challenged even if the intended detenu had not surrendered.

2. Validity of the Detention Order:
The appellant argued that the grounds of detention were vague, stale, irrelevant, and non-existent, and that there was a mala fide exercise of power and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition without examining the relevance or correctness of the grounds, as it found no extraordinary reasons to depart from the normal rule.

3. Non-approval of the Detention Order by the State Government:
The appellant contended that the detention order was not approved by the State Government within 12 days as required u/s 3(3) of the Act. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to show that the detention order was approved within the statutory period. The Court held that the detention order ceased to be in force after 12 days and was non-existent thereafter.

4. Non-reference to the Advisory Board:
The appellant also argued that his case was not referred to the Advisory Board within the prescribed period u/s 10 of the Act. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the mandatory provision was not complied with. The Court held that the detention order could not remain in force beyond three weeks without such a reference, making the detention order invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the detention order ceased to be in force after 12 days due to non-approval by the State Government and further ceased to be in force for failure to refer the appellant's case to the Advisory Board within the statutory period. The appeal was allowed, and the detention order was quashed.