( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) EARLIER these two writ petitions were referred to Full Bench on a question as to whether District Magistrate should know the constituents of liquor seized or it would be sufficient for him to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to detain a person if Public analyst reported that sample was not fit for human consumption. This question has been decided and the writ petitions on this question have been dismissed, but since many other questions were raised by the petitioners to challenge the order of detention, for other questions these writ petitions have come before this Bench.

( 3 ) THE detenus are detained by orders of detention passed by the District magistrate under the Andhra Pradesh prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the act" ). It appears that liquor was seized from the detenus on various occasions and various cases were registered against them. Grounds of detention have been communicated to them. In W. P. No. 19668 of 2004 instances of number of cases have been given which were registered against the detenu with regard to sale and distribution of ID liquor and samples drawn were found by the Public Analyst to be unfit for human consumption. Grounds 1 to 14 relate to the period from 16. 8. 2001 to 30. 7. 2004. Ground No. 3 relates to a case registered on 3. 10. 2001 and the Ground No. 4 relates to a case registered on 31. 10. 2002. That means there was a gap of almost a year between registration of these two cases. In addition to these grounds, the District magistrate also stated in the grounds of detention:"apart from the above cases filed by the prohibition and Excise Officials, a Rowdy-Sheet was also opened in the P. S. Chatrinaka against you vide Rowdy Sheet No. 79 on 23. 3. 1999 by the police officials and the same is in force. "

( 4 ) IN second case being W. P. No. 19669 of 2004 the District Magistrate passed an order of detention after being satisfied that the detenu was a bootlegger. Grounds 1 to 11 relate to the period from 30. 11. 2002 to 11. 6. 2004.

( 5 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in both the cases many grounds are stale, as in the first writ petition some of the grounds pertain to the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, whereas in another writ petition they pertain to the years 2002 and 2003 also, since the stale grounds have been taken into consideration and the grounds are not severable in terms of the act, therefore the orders of detention should be quashed.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that the staleness of the grounds would not be sufficient for quashing the order of detention in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court reported in The Collector and District magistrate, W. G. Dist. Eluru, Andhra pradesh and others v. Sangala Kondamma, 2. 004 (10) Scale 315. This is a judgment by two Judges of the Supreme Court. In this case order of detention was passed on various grounds. Criminal cases referred to in grounds of detention relate to period from 17. 1. 2000 to 25. 10. 2002. Order of detention had been passed on 15. 1. 2003. The High court of A. P. quashed the order of detention and the matter was taken to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court, while noticing the preamble, statements and objections of the Act that it aims to prevent a person from indulging in certain illegal activities, held that it was necessary that the detaining authority must be satisfied that the proposed detenu was likely to indulge in such illegal activities in future also in which he was indulging in past. The Supreme Court was further of the view that this was a satisfaction that could be reasonably arrived at by the detaining authority only by examining the material that was produced before it. In such a process the detaining authority ma