Indira Shah, J.:-- By filing this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner, brother-in-law of the detenue Sri Tagyung Yangfo; has challenged the detention orders dated 24,12.2014 and 5.3.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East kameng District, Seppa. 2. On the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sri Tasang Taku, President of the East Kameng Chambers of Commerce & Industry; Seppa P.S. Case No.127/2014 under sections 452/326/307/394 and 34, IPC was registered. On the same date, the District Magistrate, East Kameng District, Seppa passed the impugned order declaring the detenue as 'Unlawful Person' in terms of the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act) 2014. The detenue was also directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Seppa, on or before 26.12.2014. 3. The detenue could only be arrested by Seppa Police on 23.2.2015 at Itanagar in connection with Seppa P.S. Case No.127/14 and on the strength of another detention order dated 16.2.2015 passed by the District Magistrate. Prior to arrest of the detenue on 16.2.2015, the District Magistrate issued another order directing the detenue to surrender/ appear before the Superintendent of Police on or before 19.2.2015. On arrest of the detune, on 23.2.2015, the Superintendent of Police intimated the District Magistrate that seven cases so far have been registered against the detenue since 2010. Thereafter, the impugned detention Order dated 5.3.2015 was issued by the said District Magistrate and it was sent to the State Government for approval on the same day. The order dated 5.3.2015 was duly approved by the State Government and the order was sent to the Advisory Board which also approved the said detention order. Thus, the Government confirmed the order within the stipulated period. 4. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Geeta Deka, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Panging, learned counsel, that the detention order was issued by the District Magistrate initially on 24.12.2014, but the same was reported to the State Government for its approval only on 5.3.2015 meaning thereby when the detenue was detained on 23.2.2015, the order of detention of the detenue was no longer in force. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Panging, learned counsel, that the detention order was issued by the District Magistrate initially on 24.12.2014, but the same was reported to the State Government for its approval only on 5.3.2015 meaning thereby when the detenue was detained on 23.2.2015, the order of detention of the detenue was no longer in force. The order dated 16.2.2015, is, in fact, a continuance of the order dated 24.12.2014 but the approval of the Government was granted/obtained, on 9.3.2015, when the detention order 24.12.2014 was no longer in force due to lack of approval by the State Government, as such, the order dated 16.2.2015 cannot have been passed by the District Magistrate. 6. Ms. Deka, learned senior Government advocate, has submitted that the detention order dated 24.12.2014 was no longer in force and the subsequent order dated 16.2.2015 had also expired on 29.2.2015. She had also submitted that those detention orders were never approved by the State Government. The detention order dated 5.3.2015 was issued after the arrest of the detenue while he was in judicial custody. Since the orders dated 24.12.2014 and 16.2.2015 ceased to operate, hence, there is no ground to challenge the aforesaid orders. 7. Section 2(viii) of the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act 2014 defines "Unlawful Person" as under : "Unlawful person" means a person who indulges in any unlawful activity or promote or abets any illegal organization/activities declared as prohibited in the State, which are harmfuj, to maintenance of the public order or supply of daily services and goods to public either directly or indirectly." 8. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State or Officers of the State including the District Magistrate to pass order of detention, which reads, as under : "3. (1) State Government or any Officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to the State Government or a District Magistrate may if satisfied with respect to any person who is Bootlegger, Habitual Depredator of Environment, Habitual drug offender, Property Grabber, Dangerous persons, Unlawful persons associated with unlawful activities may make an order directing such person to be detained with the view' to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, or maintenance of public Order or maintenance of daily supplies and services essential to the public. (2) When any order is made under the preceding sub-section by any officer mentioned herein, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the ground on which the order has been made and such order particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force more than 12 days after making the order unless in the mean time it has been approved by the State Government: Provided that where under section 8, the ground of detention are communicated by the Officer making the order after 5 days but not later than 10 days from the date of detention, the validity of detention order shall be for IS days." 9. Herein, in this case, it will be relevant to quote sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Act, as well : "7.(1) If the State Government or the officer making an order under subsection (1) of section 3 has the reason to believe that a person in respect of wham a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, in that case, (a) The provisions of sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply in respect of the said person and his Property as if the order directing that he be detained were a warrant issued by the Magistrate. (b) By order direct the said person to appear before such officer at such place and within such period as may be specified in the order and if the said person fails to comply with such direction he shall, unless he proves that it was not possible for him to comply therewith and that he had, within the period specified in the order, informed the officer mentioned in the order of the reason which rendered compliance therewith impossible and if his whereabouts be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine to Rupees fifty thousand or with both. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be cognisable." "8. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be cognisable." "8. (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than 5 days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded. In writing not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him and his dose relatives the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of the State Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose." "10. In every case where a detention order has been made under this Act the State Government shall within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order and in case where the order has been made by an officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section (2) of that section." 10. It is submitted by Mr. Panging, learned counsel, that article 22 of the Constitution prescribes certain safeguards for persons detained which says that grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenue as soon as the person is detained, under any law providing for preventive detention. However, in the instant case, the detenue was never informed of the grounds of his detention and his right to make representation against the order of detention to the authorities concerned. 11. In the Cited case of Kamleshkumar Ishivardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51 ; in paragraph Nos.6 and 14, it has been observed, as under : "6. This provision has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. 11. In the Cited case of Kamleshkumar Ishivardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51 ; in paragraph Nos.6 and 14, it has been observed, as under : "6. This provision has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. Article 22(5) imposes a dual obligation on the authority making the order of preventive detention (i) to communicate to the reason detained as soon as may be the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) to afford the person detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Article 22(5), thus, proceeds on the basis that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention and the aforesaid mentioned two obligations are imposed on the authority making the order of detention with a view to ensure that right of the person detained to make a representation is a real right and he is able to take steps for redress of a wrong which he thinks has been committed. Article 22(5) does not, however, indicate the authority to whom the representation that is so to be made by the person detained is to enable him to obtain relief at the earliest opportunity, the said representation has to be made to the authority which can grant such/relief, i.e., the authority which can revoke the order of detention and set him at liberty. The authority that has made the order of detention can also revoke it. This right is inherent in the power to make the order. It is recognised by section 21 of the General Clause Act, 1897 though it dies not flow from it. It can, therefore, be said that article 22(5) postulates that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authority making the order. In addition, such a representation can be made to any other authority which is empowered by Law to revoke the order of detention." "14. It can, therefore, be said that article 22(5) postulates that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authority making the order. In addition, such a representation can be made to any other authority which is empowered by Law to revoke the order of detention." "14. Article 22(5) must, therefore, be construed to mean that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention which can be made not only t other Advisory Board but also to the detaining authority, i.e., the authority that has made the order of detention or the order for continuance of such detention, which is competent to give immediate relief by revoking the said as well as to any other authority which is competent under law to revoke the order for detention and thereby give relief to the person detained. The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation." 12. In the case of P.U. Abdul Rahiman v. Union of India and Ors., (1991) Supp 2 SCC 274, the Apex Court set aside the order of detention on the ground that important documents relied upon by the authority has not been supplied to the detenue. 13. In the cited case of Abdul Latif Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 22 , it was observed, in paragraph No.3, as under : "3. The real question for consideration is whether a law may be made providing for successive orders for detention in a manner as to render the protection of article 22(4) of the Constitution ineffective? For example, can a fresh order of detention be made every 89th Day making it unnecessary to obtain the report of the Advisory Board within three months of the detention? That is what it wall amount to if the submission of the learned counsel for the state is accepted. It, therefore, becomes imperative to read down section 15 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 which provides for the making of successive orders of detention so as to bring it in conformity with article 22(4) of the Constitution. It, therefore, becomes imperative to read down section 15 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 which provides for the making of successive orders of detention so as to bring it in conformity with article 22(4) of the Constitution. If there is to be a collision between article 22(4) of the Constitution and section 15 of the Act, section 15 and has to yield. But by reading down the provision, the collision may be avoided and section 15 may be sustained. So, avoiding the collision course, we hold that if the report of the Advisory Report is not made within three months of the date of detention, the detention becomes illegal notwithstanding that it is within three months from the date of the second order of detention." 14. Herein, in this case, the initial detention order dated 24.12.2014 g became inoperative after expiry of 15 days as it was never approved by the State Government. The subsequent order dated 16.2.2015 in terms of section 7 of the Act, was passed when the initial detention order was no longer in existence. Detention order dated 5.3.2015 says that the detenue was arrested in connection with Seppa P.S. Case No, 127/2014 and on the strength of order dated 16.2.2015 under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014. 15. The detention order dated 5.3.2015 was communicated to the closest relative of detenue for filing representation against the said order and it was approved by the Government vide order dated 9.3.2015. The relevant Advisory Board was constituted on 24.3.2015. Section 10 of the Act says that the State Government, shall, within 3 weeks from the date of detention of the person under the order, place, before the Advisory Board, the grounds, on which the order of detention has been made. 3 weeks expired on 16.3.2015 w.e.f. date of detention, i.e., 23.2.2015. 16. Section 8(1) says that when a person is detained in pursuance of detention order, the authority making the order shall within five days and in exception circumstances not later than 10 days from the date of detention communicate to him and his close relatives the grounds of his detention. The detention order, in this case, was communicated on 5.3.2015, i.e., on the 10th day of detention w.e.f. 23.2.2015. 17. The detention order, in this case, was communicated on 5.3.2015, i.e., on the 10th day of detention w.e.f. 23.2.2015. 17. The order dated 16.2.2015 is a detention order issued under section 3 of the Act which also directs the person declared unlawful person, to surrender before police on or before 19.2.2015. The detenue was arrested on 23.2.2015 on the strength of the aforesaid order. The term of detention order dated 16.2.2015 expired on 3.2.2015 for want of approval by the State Government and thereafter, another detention order dated 5.3.2015 was passed. 18. In the case of Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab (supra) and other catena of cases, it is to be held that in a habeas corpus proceeding, the procedural requirements are to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard. The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detune since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 19. In the aforesaid case also, the detention order was revoked and a fresh order of detention was made on the same facts on the same day. Herein, in this case, the first detention order Was issued on 24.12.2014 which was not approved by the State Government. A fresh detention order was issued on 16.2.2015. It is to be seen that before approval of detention order dated 16.2.2015, earlier detention order was neither approved by the State Government nor any Advisory Board was constituted and a fresh detention order dated 5.3.2015 was issued. Such casual approach of the State Government cannot be allowed to curtail the liberty of a citizen. Therefore, the detention order dated 5.3.2015 is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and quashed. 20. Resultantly, the detenue, shall be at liberty, forthwith, if he is not wanted in connection with any other criminal case. 21. With the above directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. --