IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who is the wife of one Cherukuri Narendra Chowdari-detenu, filed a writ petition under 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 on 30th September, 2013, under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") stating that the husband of the appellant (detenu) has got all the attributes to be called as a 'goonda' as envisaged under Section 2(g) of the Act. It is also mentioned that he was involved in several cases of theft of Government and private properties as well as cases of destruction of public properties and his antisocial activities are harmful to the society and general public and referred 11 cases registered against him.

4. It is significant to note that while passing the detention order, the Collector made it clear that the detenu has a right to make a representation to the Government under Section 8(1) of the Act and the case will be referred to the Advisory Board for review and opinion under Section 10 of the Act and the detenu can be heard personally by the Advisory Board. The Collector also indicated that the Government, on the basis of opinion of the Advisory Board, may confirm and continue the detention for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of detention.

5. After having served with a copy of the detention order along with the grounds of detention, the husband of the appellant was taken into custody by Respondent No. 3 and from 5th October, 2013 he was detained in the Central Prison, Rajahmundry till date.

6. It appears that on the basis 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 matters where liberty of a person is at stake, the Courts would take a liberal approach in the procedural aspects. But unfortunately in the instant case, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition at the threshold itself.

8. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that as per the provisions of the Act, the period of detention in the first instance shall not exceed more than three months and a person cannot be put under detention without facing trial for a long period. When the husband of the appellant-detenu is already facing charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code in around 11 cases, the invocation of detention laws against him and not permitting him to face the trial is bad in law and it is also contrary to Clause (4)(a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the Government Order direc