JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These two appeals involve identical issues. The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 has its foundation on the judgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999. Therefore, the factual position involved in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999 is described.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu and District Magistrate & Collector, Vellore District (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority ) call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention dated 29.3.1988 passed by the Detaining Authority.

3. A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of Kethiyan Perumal (hereinafter described as "the detenu") who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the `Act ). The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition primarily on the ground that the Detaining Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the finding about unlawful activities of the detenu or that it was highly dangerous to the public order. The H