JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted in each case.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed in each case by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ petitions filed for quashing the order of detention passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore, under Sections 3(1), 3(2) read with Section 2(a) and (g) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short the Act) in respect of Shri Pralayakaveri Bhaskar. Sri Pamanji Chenna Reddy, Sri Pralayakaveri Gnanaiah, Sri Voila Babu and Sri Pamanji Babu (each described as detenu hereinafter)

3. Respondent claiming to be a friend of the detenu challenged the validity of the order stating it to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). The main ground of challenge was that the grounds of detention referred to certain acts which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC), as well as the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short Explosive Act) and, therefore, shows non-application of mind.

4. It was the stand of the writ petitioner who had filed the Habeas Corpus Petition that the instances referred to do not affect the public order at all and in any event since some of the grounds related to offences punishable under the Explosive Act, the detention under the Act was impermissible. The High Court accepted the stand and quashed the order of detention.

5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 2(g) of the Act defines a goonda. Undisputedly, all the instances detailed in the order of detention related to offences punishable under IPC and also under some of the provisions of the Explosive Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some of the instances are not relatable to offences punishable under IPC and, therefore, Section 2(g) of the Act has no application. In any event, it is submitted that most of the incidents highlighted are stale incidents and do not in any manner constitute violation of public order.

7. Section 2(g) of the Act reads as follows:

"Goondas means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code."

8. Undisputedly, in all the instances given in the grounds of detention, the indicated offences are punishable under either Chapters XVI or XVII and/or XXII. In addition, in certain instances reference has been made to offences punishable under the Explosive Act.

9. Therefore, it is not correct as observed by the High Court that some of the grounds related to offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Act only. It is really not so. Even otherwise, all instances indicated are in respect of offences covered by the definition of the expression goonda. The test is whether the detenu is a "goonda" in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act. Reference to other provisions does not affect that conclusion. There may be cases where offences may be punishable under different statutes. Inevitably, therefore, reference has to be made to them when giving details of an incident. That will not be a factor to render detention invalid.

10. So far as the stand that incidents were stale incidents, it is to be noted that most of the incidents highlighted are of November 2005. The order of detention was passed on 20.3.2006. The State Government approved the order of detention on 28.3.2006. The Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention and based on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. That being so