( 1 ) THE Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short the act , was allowed to be a history by efflux of eight years time fixed under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, but the question whether the prosecution launched against the two petitioners in these two writ petitions under the provisions of the Act is valid or not is still engaging the attention of the Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 7594 of 1996 is Accused No. 8 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7700of 1996 is Accused No. 2 in Sessions Caseno. 595 of 1994 (Crime no. 151/93) on the file of the Designated Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7594 of 1996 has prayed for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records in S. C. No. 595/94 on the file of the Designated Court- cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad declaring that the action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of the Act, Explosive Substances Act and sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A and 153-B of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently disch