Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
In our companysidered view, when habeas companypus writ petition is filed, even though the petitioner has number properly framed the petition and number sought appropriate relief, it is expected from the Court to at least go into the issue and decide on merits.
After having served with a companyy of the detention order along with the grounds of detention, the husband of the appellant was taken into custody by Respondent No.
The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Collector District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Respondent 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.
3 and from 5th October, 2013 he was detained in the Central Prison, Rajahmundry till date.
The Collector also indicated that the Government, on the basis of opinion of the Advisory Board, may companyfirm and companytinue the detention for a period number exceeding 12 months from the date of detention.
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.
When the appellant challenged the detention of her husband before the High Court in a habeas companypus Writ Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order.
It is significant to numbere 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.
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.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, who is the wife of one Cherukuri Narendra Chowdaridetenu, 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 companypetent Court of law decides the order of detention as illegal and invalid, it cannot be said that it is unauthorized detention.
