The grounds of appeal in this case primarily revolve around three key procedural issues that were identified by the court as having significant legal implications:

1. Non-compliance with procedural requirements in the preparation and submission of investigation reports: The appellant contends that the delay in the submission of the complete police investigation report was unreasonable and prejudicial, leading to the invalidity of the detention order. The court found that the delay was not justified and that such procedural lapses compromised the legality of the detention (!) (!) .

2. Improper issuance of the detention order by an unqualified or incorrectly identified authority: The appellant argues that the detention order was issued and signed by an individual not authorized under the relevant statutory provisions, and that the order was not signed by the correct designated officer as mandated by law. The court identified that the order was ex facie defective because it was issued by a person not properly authorized or identified in accordance with the statutory requirements (!) (!) .

3. Failure to observe the constitutional rights of the detainee, specifically the right to representation and timely consideration of representations: The appellant asserts that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under constitutional provisions, such as the right to be heard and the timely consideration of representations, were not upheld. The delay in convening the advisory board and the failure to consider the representations within the prescribed period constituted a breach of constitutional rights (!) (!) .

These procedural irregularities collectively form the basis for the appeal, emphasizing that violations of mandatory procedures and constitutional rights undermine the legality and validity of the detention order, warranting its quashing and the release of the detainee.