ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J .
1. This
writ petition is filed by Smt. Kailashi Bai seeking for issuance of writ of Hebeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce her husband Ram Vilas Gupta @ Aggarwal who was detained in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, before this Court; to declare his detention as illegal and void and consequently set him at liberty.
2. The brief averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: The husband of the petitioner namely Ram Vilas Gupta @ Aggarwal was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order of the 1st respondent dated 3-2-1998 on the ground that her husband indulged in unauthorised transactions of currency which affected the Foreign Exchange resources of the country. Coming to know about the passing of the detention order, her husband himself surrendered before the police on 4-3-1998. Prior to the passing of the detention order, the detenu was arrested under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 23-12-1997 and produced before the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad on 24-12-1997. On the same day the detenue filed bail-cum-retraction application and he was granted bail on 5-1-1998.
3. The main allegation against the detenu is that from January to August 1997 Mr. Gulab Chand Shivlal Jain @ Gulab of Bombay received Rs.4 crones on the instruction of one Parvez of Dubai and that Gulab distributed the said amount to various persons on the instructions of the detenu, which instruction the detenu received from time to time from Parvez. Every month an agent of Parvez used to take from the detenu the amount of money received and the account of money distributed.
4. The order or detention was passed on the basis of the statement of Gulab Chand Shivlal Jain @ Gulab and that of the detenu recorded under Section 40 of the Act, which are referred to as Ground No.5 and Ground No. 13 in the order of detention. Grounds 5, 12, 13 and 14 directly relate to the detenu, which are extracted herein:
Ground No.5:
“Statement of Gulab Chand Shivlal Jain @ Gulab was recorded under Section 40
of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 21-8-1997 and 22-8-1997 in which he inter alia, stated that he is an Indian National; that he could read, write and speak Hindi; that one Ram Vilas Aggarwal (i.e. you) known to him lived in Hyderabad; that his address was Chailapur, Hyderabad and phone No.4414418; that you met him in December, 1996 in Hyderabad and told him about one Parvez living in Dubai; that you asked regarding the job, you told Gulabbhai that Parvez living in Dubai would give him money in Mumbai and he has to keep mat money; that you would tell him on telephone from Hyderabad to which persons this money was to be distributed; that you told him that his commission would be Rs. 100/- per Lakh Rupees that he agreed and then you introduced him with Parvez on phone; that telephone number of Parvez was 009714278531; that Parvez told Gulab that he would send money to Gulab through a person namely Raju Bhai; that Parvez gave Gulabbhai, Raju Bhai’s telephone number as 3712451; that Parvez told Gulab that he would send money and then Mohd. Saleh Taher Mohd wpuld tell him on phone and after that the money will be delivered that Gulab came to Mumbai in January, 1997 and started living at the address above where telephone number 2070217 was installed; that you paid the rent of this premises; that two persons Sunder Singh and Mahendra worked for Gulab whose salary was given by you; that whenever Parvez sent money, Mohd. Saleh Taher Mohd informed him on phone; that he also told to send Gulab’s man to Khara Kuava or Johari Bazaar where Jeetubhai or other person would bring money; that in this way Gulab was receiving about Rs.l crore per month in Mumbai on the orders of Parvez; that you phoned Gulab daily from Hyderabad and told him names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons to whom money was to be distributed i.e., whenever Gulab received money on the instructions of
Parvez, he distributes the same to different persons in Mumbai on your instructions that Gulab used to write name, telephone number, address of the persons which you used to tell on phone on small slips and used to destroy these slips after making payments; that Gulab did not remember names and addresses of the persons to whom he distributed money; that Gulab did not keep any account and it was kept by you in Hyderabad; that Rs.75,000/-scizcd from Gulab’s residence was part of Rs.5,50,000/- which he received from Mohd. Saleh Taher Mohd. on the instructions of Parvez; that Gulab paid Rs.4,75,000/- to Basantbhai, Shashikant and Mahavir, whose telephone number and addresses he did not remember, on your instructions; that he was known as Gulab, when confronted with the bunch marked ‘F’ seized from 1st Floor, 162, Said Dham, Chinchbunder, Mumbai-9, by the officers of Enforcement, he stated that his name Gulab is written on Page Nos.l, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 27 of bunch ‘F’; tliat as per these pages he (Gulab) received total amount of Rs.91 lakhs in the month of August…..on the instructions of Parvez residing in Dubai and distributed it to various persons on your instructions that during the last 8 months Gulab had received about Rs.4 crores in Mumbai on the instructions of Parvez, which he distributed among various persons on your instructions, tliat Gulab had never met him (Mohd Saleh Taher Mohd) and had only talked to him over phone. In his further statement dated 21/22-8-1997 Sh. Gulabchand Shivlal Jain stated that on 21-8-1997 he had received Rs.5,50,000/-from Raju Bhai on the instructions of Parvez and out of this, he distributed Rs.4,75,000/- amongst three persons and the balance of Rs.75,000/- has been seized by the officers of Enforcement as per panchnama dated 21-8-1997; tliat he had made the following payments on your instructions.
Sl-No.
Name
Amount
Telephone No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
Basant Bhai
Rs. 1 lakh
2031646
2.
Chandrakant
Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs during 5 to 6 times
3888416
3.
Narendra Bhai
Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs during 5 to 6 times
2005207
4.
Prakash Bliai
Rs. 6 lo 7 lakhs during 4 lo 5 times
3444318
5.
Gopal Bhai
Rs. 5 to 7 1akhs during 5 to 6 times
440030
that Gulab did not remember any other telephone number.”
Ground No.12:
“On the basis of Gulabchand Shivlal Jain’s statements your residential premises at H.No.21-3-754/1, Chelapura; Hyderabad was searched under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 27-8-1997 as a result of which nothing was seized. You were not available at the time of search and summons were issued to you for your appearance. Regular surveillance was kept, but you did not appear and were absconding. Smt. Kailashibai, your wife vide her letter dated 13-9-1997 informed that you were out of station on 3-9-1997 and you will be informed to appear before the officer as and when you will be informed to appear before as and when you reach home.”
Ground No. 13:
“You in your statement dated 23-12-1997 recorded under Section 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, inter alia, stated tliat your name was Ram Vilas Gupta and you were also known as Aggarwal; tliat you were doing the business of clothes in Hyderabad; that the telephone number of your residence was 4577322; that you could read, write and understand Hindi; that officers searched your residence on
27-8-1997 when you were not present in Hyderabad and had gone to your village; that you had been shown Gulab’s statements dated 21-8-1997,22-8-1997 and 22-9-1997 given by him before the Enforcement Officers, Mumbai; that you knew Gulab for the last 20 years as he was afeb running a cloth shop in his market, Char Kamman, Mitti-Ka-Sher; that around October-November, 1996 you met one person viz., Parvez in Null Bazaar, Mumbai, where you used to see him occasionally whenever you went there for purchase of clothes; that in October-November, 1996, Parvez introduced himself to you and told that he was doing some business in Dubai and asked you as to whether you can make some payments in Mumbai on his instructions and offered you a commission of Rs.300/- per lakh of Rupees distributed; that you agreed to do this job and Parvez gave you his Dubai Number: 009714 4278531 and you gave Parvez your telephone number 4414418, which was not in your name but was installed at your residence; that you talked to Gulab after coining to Hyderabad, Gulab also agreed to do this job from Mumbai; that you agreed to pay a commission of Rupees one Hundred per lakh of rupees to Gulab; that as agreed in December, 1996, Gulab started this work from Mumbai in January, 1997; that before this, you introduced Gulab to Parvez on Dubai telephone number 00971 4278531 of Parvez, that Parvez then told Gulab that he would receive money in Mumbai through one person viz. Rajubhai and he also gave Gulab Rajubhai’s telephone number 3712451; that then Gulab took one office with telephone number 2070217 and employed two persons Sunder and Mahendra, that he (Gulab) was paying for the expenses of office and others; that Parvez used to convey to you over telephone from Dubai, the names and addresses of those persons to whom the money was to be distributed in Mumbai through Gulab; that in this way, you were
making payments of the amounts of Parvez, received by Gulab through Kajubhai to the persons as instructed by Parvez through Gulab; that they (you, Kajubhai, Parvez and Gulabchand) had made this arrangement to escape from clutches of law; that Gulab used to talk to him (Kajubhai) on telephone on his instructions and from his (Mohd. Seikh Taker Mohd.’s) persons whose names and addresses they did not know, Gulab used to bring amounts from different places at different times which were earlier settled over telephone; that after that Parvezbhai used to talk to you in Hyderabad over telephone and used to tell you, as to how amount has to be paid to which persons, at which place find at which telephone number; that accordingly, you used to instruct Gulab over telephone, how much money was to be paid to which person at which place and accordingly Gulab was distributing money which he (Gitlab) used to receive from the persons of Rajubhai; that as Gulab had said in his statement, he used to receive most of the amounts in Zaveri Bazaar; that they used to receive approximately Rs. 1 crore per month on the instructions of Parvez which they used to distribute on the instructions of Parvez after keeping their commission; that you confirmed whatever your associate Gulab had stated regarding the amount received by him (Gulab) in August, 1997 on the instructions of Parvez are as detailed below:
1-8-1997 Rs.5 lakhs
2-8-1997 Rs.6 lakhs
3-8-1997 Rs. 7 lakhs
5-8-1997 Rs.15 lakhs
6-8-1997 Rs.5 lakhs
8-8-1997 Rs.6 lakhs
9-8-1997 Rs.5.5 lakhs
10-8-1997 Rs.5 lakhs
12-8-1997 Rs.8 lakhs
14-8-1997 Rs.6 lakhs
15-8-1997 Rs.5 lakhs
17-8-1997 Rs.8 lakhs
20-8-1997 Rs.5 lakhs
21-8-1997 Rs.5.5 lakhs
that in this way from January to August, 1997 they received Rs.4 crorcs on the instructions of Parvez, which Parvez arranged to deliver to Gulah through Mohd Saleh Taher Mohd. and which Gulah distributed among the various persons on your instructions, which you received from time to time from Parvez; that every month one person of Parvez, used to take from you the account of money received and the amount of money distributed and that you used to tell Parvez, the amount received and distributed on his (Parvez) instructions over telephone, as whenever Parvez used to send money, he also used to give details of the amounts to be received and to be distributed over telephone; that you did not have any paper of account as you used to destroy it.”
Ground No.14:
“You were arrested under Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on 23-12-1997 and produced in the Hon’ble Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad on 24-12-1997 where the Hon’ble Judge was pleased to remand you to Judicial Custody till 2-1-1998. You filed bail-cum-retraction application dated 24-12-1997 and its counter reply dated 31-12-1997 was filed by the department when the Hon’ble Court passed order rejecting his bail petition. Another bail application was filed on 2-1-1998 on your behalf and the Hon’ble Court granted you bail vide order dated 5-1-1998.”
5. Thus, the 1st respondent observed in his detention order that the detenu has been engaged in unauthorised transaction in violation of provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 thereby affecting foreign exchange resources of the country and unless the detenu is detained he is likely to continue
to engage in the aforesaid prejudicial activities in future also and, therefore, it is necessary to detain him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as ‘the COFEPOSA Act’ with a view to prevent him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of country’s foreign exchange resources.
6. The petitioner attacked the order of detention on several grounds. According to her, the detenu did not indulge in any of the activities which are prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of Foreign Exchange etc., referred to in Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The alleged distribution of amount was in Indian Currency and there was no allegation that any smuggled goods or Foreign Currency smuggled into India was distributed. Hence the order of detention was passed on non-existent grounds. The petitioner further averred that the statements of the detenue and one Gulab basing on which the impugned detention order was passed, were retracted at the earliest possible opportunity, and if they are excluded, there is absolutely no material to connect the detenue with the alleged transaction and the said statements were obtained under threat and coercion. The petitioner further contended that distribution of Indian Currency in India docs not attract the penal provision of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, She lastly submitted that the order of detention was passed mechanically without application of mind and the grounds are vague, irrelevant and non-existant.
7. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter stating the present case in receipt and distribution of hawala payments in India under instructions from abroad and the detenue’s involvement in the reported racket was found to be to an extent of Rs.4 crores. Besides the statements of the detenue and Gulab and other documents and material are sufficient to sustain subjective satisfaction. The detention order was passed lawfully after careful consideration
of all the material placed before the Detaining Authority. It is averred that the detenue has been engaged in receipt and distribution of Hawala payments with the assistance of Mr. Gulab under the instruction of one Parvez and the modus operandi is that Parvez has been collecting foreign exchange from the Indians residing in Dubai, who were desirous of sending money to their relatives in India and in lieu of foreign exchange collected by Parvez in Dubai, he was arranging payments in Indian Currency in India unauthorisedly through various persons including the detenue. Had Parvez not collected the foreign exchange in Dubai, the same would have been flown to India through normal banking channels and, thus, the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange resources of the country. The retractions made by the detenue and others were duly considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order. It is farther contended that distribution of payments in India under instructions from abroad without Reserve Bank of India’s general or special exemption, is an offence under Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Since the representation of the detenu dated 19-3-1998 had no merit, the same was rightly rejected by the Detaining Authority.
8. The petitioner filed additional affidavit raising additional grounds as follows: The detenu submitted representation dated 21-4-1998 to the Central Government and the same was rejected on 5-6-1998 which was received by the detenu on 11-6-1998. The petitioner averred that the abnormal delay in considering the representation of the detenu offends the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The grounds of detention served on the detenu arc in both English and Hindi and certain pages were missing and there is variation in grounds of detention between Hindi and English. The detenue requested the authority to supply the same but they were never supplied which handicapped the detenu
in making purposeful representation and as such the detention is violativc of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that a representation to the Advisory Board was sent on 21-4-1998 and the same was rejected on 2-6-1998 which was received by the detenu on 4-6-1998. The Advisory Board met on 8-5-1998 at Hyderabad and confirmed the order of detention on 25-5-1998 and the same was communicated to the detenu on 28-5-1998 which is beyond the stipulated time. The request of the detenu to permit him by the Advisory Board to examine Naval Kishore, Siva Kumar, Gulabchcmd Mohd. Saleh Tahir Mohd. and Jeetubhai in rebuttal of allegations was not considered and thus the detenu was deprived of an opportunity to prove his innocence. The retractual confessional statement of co-accused cannot form basis for the impugned detention order in the absence of any other independent corroboration. It is further averred that the representation dated 19-3-1998 of the detenue was rejected by the Central Government on 3-4-1998 which was received by him on 20-4-1998, but the jail authorities got it written as 16-4-1998 forcibly to show mat the order was received by him on 16-4-1998. Lastly it is submitted that when the detenu was produced on 24-12-1997 before the Special Judge for Economic Offences, he submitted to the Court that the statement made by him before the authorities was not true and voluntary. But this was not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority,
9. To the above additional affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 filed additional counter-affidavit stating that the representation of the dctenue dated 21-4-1998 was received on 18-5-1998. Thereupon the comments of Sponsoring Authority namely Deputy Director (Enforcement) were called for on 19-5-1998 and the comments were received on 2-6-1998 (in between, 30th and 31st May, 1998 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday). The comments were submitted to the Secretary (Rev.) who considered the representation on
behalf of the Central Government and rejected the same on 4-6-1998 and a memo intimating the same to the detenu was sent on 5-6-1998. Simultaneously, the representation of the detenu dated 21-4-1998 was also considered independently by the Detaining Authority who rejected the, same on 2-6-1998 and the same was intimated to the detenu. As such there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu as alleged and in fact the same was disposed most expcditiously. It is averred that complete set of documents both in Hindi and English were supplied to the detenu and the allegation that some pages were missing is vague and baseless. It is further averred that the detenu’s confirmation by the Advisory Board was communicated within the stipulated time of three months after detention on 4-3-1998. According to the respondents, the discretion vests with the Advisory Board whether or not to allow examination of certain witnesses or otherwise and as such the Detaining Authority cannot comment on this. The detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority after careful consideration of all the material placed before it including the retraction of the parties concerned.
10. The main ground on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to attack the case of detention was that Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short ‘the COFEPOSA Act’) has no application to the allegations made against her husband. The grounds enumerated in the order of detention arc quite vague and irrelevant without any proximity. The authority passed the order without applying his mind to the provisions of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The other material which was relied upon by the authority in passing the order of detention was not made available to the detenu. The representation given by the detenu both to the State Government and to the Central Government was not considered properly. The Advisory Board did not permit the detenu to examine the witnesses though they were cited.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the distribution of money cannot be brought within the purview of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. Even assuming that there was contravention in distributing Indian Currency, proceedings should have been instituted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and not under the COFEPOSA Act. The order under challenge is a cyclo-stylcd one and the Detaining Authority put his signature mechanically on the note put up by his office without examining the draft grounds as to whether they warrant action under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. Thus contending, Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel also placed reliance on some authorities which will be discussed at a later stage.
11. As an answer to these contentions, Sri Adinarayana Rao, learned standing Counsel for the Central Government contended that the order of detention is a just one and that it was passed after satisfying with the requirements of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. He further contended that the order passed is a considered one and that it need not be an elaborate order as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ismail Jumma, AIR 1982 SC 683. The material that was relied upon by the authorities was made available to the detenu. The detenu did not make any representation before the Advisory Committee seeking permission to examine the witnesses or to cross-examine those witnesses who were examined on behalf of the authorities. According to him, the distribution of money was at the instance of a person by name Parvez staying in Dubai, whose main idea was to earn money at the cost of Indian currency. After satisfying that the detenu has involved in such an illegal act, which was prejudicial to the interest of the State economy, to prevent augmentation of foreign exchange, action under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act was taken. Though the detenu could have been tried under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, it was not resorted to as the same is time
consuming. According to him, merely because one or two grounds are stale or irrelevant, the same do not render the order bad in view of Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act. Tims contending the learned Counsel urged that the order of detention is a just one and no grievance is made out.
12. Before considering the points urged by both sides, it is proper to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in some of the decisions on the issues involved in this case. In Leharibai v. State of Karnataka, 1981 Crl.LJ 1048, the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Detaining Authority shall indicate that the same is the resultant of application of mind. On the other hand, if such an order is passed in a mechanical manner, the same is incorrect and it deserves to be quashed. This view has been followed by the same High Court in WP No.33 of 1997.
13. The idea behind supply of documents is to facilitate the detenu to make more effective representation. Failure to furnish such documents on which the Detaining Authority relied upon, renders the order void as held by the Supreme Court in Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal, , likewise in the case of Khudiram Das v. Stale of West Bengal, , the Supreme Court in the earlier case while considering the scope of Articles 22(5) and 19 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of Internal Security Act (1971), held as follows:
“The grounds under Article 22(4) mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based. Nothing less than all the basic fact and materials which influenced the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. That is the plain requirement of the first safeguard in Article 22(5). The second safeguard in Article 22(5) requires that the detenu shall
be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. No avoidable delay, no short fall in the materials communicated shall stand in the way of the detenu in making an earlier, yet comprehensive and effective, representation in regard to all basic facts and materials which may have influenced the detaining authority in making the order or detention depriving him of his freedom. These are the legal bulwarks enacted by the constitution-makers against arbitrary or improper exercise of the vast powers of preventive detention which may be vested in the executive by a law of preventive detention such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.”
In the case of Mohd. Yousuf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, , the Supreme Court held that the grounds on which detention can be ordered must be relevant and the same shall be made known to the concerned detenu at the earliest possible time so that he can make an effective representation. The Supreme Court also observed that a ground is said to be irrelevant when it has no connection with the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention under appropriate law. The Supreme Court further observed that if grounds are vague and irrelevant, the order or detention shall be quashed. Otherwise the incorrect detention invades the constitutional right of the detenu, thus entitles him to approach the Court for relief. The Supreme Court in Merunnisa v. State of Maharashtra, , Dharmista Bhagat v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 155, Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, , and. Thakor Mulchandani v. Assistant Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, , it took similar view that non-furnishing of the documents on which the detaining authority relied on, renders the order of detention void.
14. In the case of Krishna Murari v. Union of India, , the
Supreme Court took a view that the order of detention shall be passed by an authority who according to law is the Detaining Authority and it shall be signed by him alone and it shall not be a composite or a joint order as one looking into the grounds and some other passing the order. In other words, the authority who passes the detention order shall satisfy from the material made available whether there is any basis to hold that the order of detention is a just one.
15. If no opportunity is given to the detenu to examine the witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses of the authority will render the order of detention bad as held by the Supreme Court in the following cases viz., A.K. Roy v. Union of India. , and Harbanslal v. M.L Wadhawan, .
16. The representation, if any given by the detenu either to the State Government or to the Central Government shall be considered within a reasonable time. Its non-consideration renders the order of detention illegal as held by the Supreme Court in Moosa Husein Sanghar v. State of Gujarat, .
17. Sri Adinarayana Rao, learned standing Counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that if one ground is vague or irrelevant, it docs not mean that the entire order is vitiated, in view of Section 5 A of the COFEPOSA Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Amid v. Union of India, . It is brought to our notice another decision of the Supreme Court in Kamarunnisa v. Union of India, , to support the contention of the learned Counsel that in case some of the documents are not supplied, the same docs not make the order vitiated unless the material relied upon is not furnished or while considering the representation, certain important aspects were refused to be considered.
18. The personal liberty of a citizen is a precious one and it is placed on high pedestal
and at any cost it shall be protected. Its deprival is only for the reasons known to law and not otherwise. On the examination of the order of detention in the light of the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other Courts as stated above on the propriety or otherwise of the order of detention, when it can be said the detention is a just one and the same is the result of the satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority and the grounds made out warrant immediate action, viz., detention, otherwise it may perpetuate in causing irreperablc prejudice to the society and the public at large, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be said as capable of standing the test of principles mentioned above. When the authorities have power to prosecute a person for violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, we failed to understand why they resorted to such a drastic action of detention. Hence, in our view, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.
19. Accordingly, the impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. However, the quashing of the detention order shall not be meant that the authorities are debarred from taking any action against the detenu in accordance with law for violation of any law.