Judgment

2. This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated July 4,1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 8610 of 1988.

3. The appellant states that he enjoys popularity in his area and that he previously held several important positions in the Cuddapah District of Andhra Pradesh, such as organising secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee for several years, a Municipal Councillor from 1982 to 1986 and a Vice-Chairman of Cuddapah Municipal Council. According to him in December 1985 he was elected as a Chairman of the Cuddapah Municipal Council for its residuary term and in March 1987 he was elected to the Municipal Council as an independent candidate defeating the Telugu Desam and Congress (I) candidates by a large margin. It is his case that the local leadership of the ruling Telugu Desam party having failed to woo him into their fold he was pressurised through the Excise and Police authorities foisting false cases upon him. On November 13, 1987, the police having summoned him to the police station for taking his photograph as was done in case of criminals, he moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Writ Petition No. 79038 of 1987 and the High Court was pleased to issue directions as prayed for, by its order dated December 17,1987. Thereafter the excise authorities are stated to have registered some cases against the appellant who applied for and was granted bail on May 10, 1988 rejecting the excise authorities prayer for custody. Scenting a move to detain the appellant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8610 of 1988 on June 6, 1988 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court averring, inter alia, that the successive actions initiated against him were a part of political vendetta. A learned Single Judge on June 8,1988 was pleased to direct interim the respondents not to take the appellant into preventive custody for a period of 15 days on the basis of the cases already registered. However, on June 10,1988 the appellant was served the detention order in S. No. 7 of 1988 dated June 3, 1988 as well as the grounds of detention; and he was taken into custody and detained in Secunderabad jail, but was released after four days. The detention order stated that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing that "he shall be detained". The grounds of detention as served upon the appellant contained altogether 13 grounds ranging a period from November 23,1974 to May 7,1988.

4. The appellant filed on June 25,1988 in his writ petition a miscellaneous petition being W.P.M.P. S.R. No. 51830, as an additional affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the writ petition was filed by him seeking a direction to the respondents to refrain from making an order detaining him under the provisions of the Act and the same was admitted and interim direction issued. But thereafter the detention order in S. No. 7 of 1988 dated June 3,1988 was served on him on June 10,1988 and, therefore, he submitted the additional affidavit with reference to the impugned order of detention. He assailed therein the grounds of detention as vague, stale, non-existent and, in any case, irrelevant bearing no reasons for the decision that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He also assailed the order on grounds of non-application of mind by respondent 2 and absence of nexus between the grounds and maintenance of public order and of non-disclosure of any rational basis for formation of such an opinion. He refuted and denied each of the 13 grounds and prayed that the writ petition be amended by substituting the prayer so as to issue a writ, order or d