ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Courts dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition No. 23698 of 2011. challenging the detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate. Kadapa, Y.S.R. District, in proceedings Ref: C1/444/M/2011. dated 4th August, 2011, in respect of Maddipatta Reddy. Narayana, under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) 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 1986 Act". The detention order was passed with the object of preventing the detenu from causing excessive damage to the national wealth by trespassing, cutting, dressing and transporting the red sanders wood from the forest. The said detention order was approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in GO Rt. No. 3589, General Administration (Law & Order II) Department dated 10th August, 2011, in GO Rt. No. 3920, General Administration (Law & Order II) Department, dated 3rd September, 2011.

3. The grounds of detention could not be served on the detenu as he was in judicial custody in execution of a non-bailable warrant in Cr. No. 110 of 2007 of Chinthakommadinne Police Station. The detention order and the ground of detention were subsequently served on the detenu on 12th August, 2011, when he was lodged in the Central Prison, Kadapa.

4. The detention order was challenged on the ground that the same had been passed in a mechanical manner on vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds.

5. Before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the detenu had been repeatedly involved in cutting down red sanders trees in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, and since every time he has been released on bail, the Respondents, found it difficult to check the illegal activities of the detenu without resorting to the provisions of the 1986 Act, by passing the order of detention.

6. On behalf of the detenu, it was submitted before the High Court that the offences with which he had been charged, could not be taken as sufficient grounds for passing of a detention order, since the said offences could be tried and dealt with under the provisions, not only of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, but also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on behalf of the detenu on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244, in which two propositions were considered. One proposition was with regard to the question raised as to whether the detention order would be legal and valid if recourse to criminal proceedings were sufficient to deal with the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu. This Court held that if a person is liable to be tried, or is actually being tried, for a criminal offence, but the ordinary criminal law will not be able to deal with the situation, then, and only then, the preventive detention order may be taken recourse to.

7. The second issue which was considered was the possibility of the detenu being released on bail while in custody in connection with the same cases.

8. On both counts this Court held that preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law. It follows, therefore, that if the ordinary law of the land (Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. On behalf of the Respondents herein, reliance was placed on a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in G. Reddeiah v. Government A.P. and Anr., (2012) 2 SCC 389, which also involved a detention order passed under the 1986 Act, in regard to theft of sandalwood and red sanders wood. It was pointed out on behalf