G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed assailing the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent-Government in G. O. Rt. No. 2670, dated 24-05-2004. The 1st respondent passed the order under Sec. 3 (2) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and ordered detention of the uncle of the petitioner (hereinafter called "the detenu") on the ground that he was a goonda as defined under Sec. 2 (g) of the Act. The said Order having been approved by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that after detention, the representation submitted by the detenu on 3-6-2004 was placed before the Advisory Board and the said Board rejected the representation and formal order of rejection was communicated to the detenu on 28-06-2004. Further, the matter was also placed before the Advisory Board in its meeting held on 28-06-2004 and the advisory Board confirmed the order of detention and therefore, the Government issued the impugned order. The order of detention is assailed on the following grounds:1. that there is a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the order and the detenu did not fall within the definition "goonda" as defined under Sec. 2 (g) of the Act. 2. that the detaining authority has considered irrelevant grounds for passing the impugned order. It is also asserted that it is a long and unexplained gap between the alleged incident and the order of detention. Lastly, it was also urged that the acts alleged to have been committed by the detenu would not fall within the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined under Section 2 (a) of the act and thus, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) IN the counter filed by the 1st respondent-authority, it is stated that the detenu has been causing grass loot of national Wealth and he was habituated to wilfully destructing the Pristine red sanders by operating mafia and there is a source of potential danger to the public and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is submitted that the divisional Forest Officer has placed the record before the detaining authority on 17-12-2003 wherein it was alleged that on 9-12-2003, a case was registered against the detenu while he was indulging in cutting of red sanders when the forest officials have found the red sander of 15 logs weighing 526 kgs. , valued at Rs. 11,072/- and thereby, he committed an offence under Section 379 ipc read with 20 (1) (c) (ii) and (iii) of A. P. Forest Act. Similarly, on 13-12-2003, a case was registered against the detenu while he was found carrying illicit cutting and storage of red sanders for transporting on 13-12-2003. The value of the red sander logs was Rs. 14,432/- and thereby, a case was registered under Section 379 IPC and section 20 (1) (c) (ii) and (iii) and (iv) of A. P. Forest Act. On 15-12-2003, another case was registered against the detenu under section 379 IPC and Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) and (iii) of A. P. Forest Act.

( 4 ) BASING on the above acts, the matter was considered by the detaining authority and an order was issued which culminated in the order having been issued by the government in G. O. Rt. No. 2670, dated 24-05-2004. In pursuance of the orders of the detention, dated 19-05-2004, the detenu was arrested and detained in Central Prison, cherlapalli from 21-05-2004. Thus, it is sought to be contended that the order of detention passed by the detaining authority as was approved by the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 2670, dated 24-5-2004 is quite legal and valid and the same cannot be interfered with.

( 5 ) THE learned senior counsel mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the detenu has submitted that the detenu did not fall within the definition "goonda" as defin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document