( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by m. Ashok Goud challenging the order of detention passed by the respondents against his father namely M. Anja Goud (hereinafter referred to as detenu ).

( 2 ) THE order of detention has been passed on 24-9-2001 by Collector and District magistrate, Nizamabad in terms of the andhra Pradesh 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 ). Notices have been issued. Counter and an additional counter affidavit have been filed. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy for petitioner and also the learned Advocate General for the State.

( 3 ) THE impugned order was passed on 24th September, 2001. The petitioner made a representation on 28th September, 2001. The order of detention was approved by the government on 1st October, 2001. The representation made to the Collector was rejected on 5-10-2001 and the representation made to the Government was rejected on 12-10-2001. The Advisory Board gave its opinion in favour of detention on 29th october, 2001. The Government confirmed the order of detention on 6th November, 2001 and the detention was approved for a period of twelve months.

( 4 ) THE learned Senior Advocate challenged the order of detention on four grounds. They are enumerated herein below; (1) That the grounds 1 and 2 are stale, they are not proximate and are remote. (2) That the ground No. 4 is irrelevant, it is not related to bootlegging activity. (3) The detenu is alleged to have indulged in adulterating toddy with chloral hydrate and according to the Chemical analyst chloral hydrate is injurious to health but dealing in a substance which is injurious to health would not be per se an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (4) The Government did not consider independently the representation of the detenu and it merely rejected the representation on a report of the collector. The learned Advocate General on the other hand pleaded that these grounds were not available at all to the detenu to be agitated in the fact situation of the present case.

( 5 ) COMING to the first ground of attack that grounds 1 and 2 of the detention order are stale and not proximate but remote, let us have a look on the grounds of detention. Ground No. 1 relates to a crime in which the detenu was an accused for an occurrence in october, 1998 and ground No. 2 also relates to a crime in which the detenu was an accused of an offence relating to January, 1999. Ground No. 3 relates to a crime in which the detenu was an accused of an offence relating to June, 2001 and ground no. 4 also relates to a crime of June, 2001. All these cases are still pending before the courts. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy argued that, since all the four grounds were taken into consideration by the Collector and district Magistrate the first two grounds being stale therefore it will not be appropriate for this Court to come to a conclusion as to what weighed with the collector while coming to the satisfaction that the detenu needs to be detained under the preventive detention laws. The learned advocate General on the other hand submitted that as a matter of fact the four instances given in the grounds of detention are only the instances of a single ground and that ground is that the detenu is a bootlegger. In order to substantiate and in order to come to a conclusion that the detenu needed to be detained as he was a bootlegger these instances were taken into consideration and weighed with the District magistrate. Past conduct of a person who is detained is a relevant factor for coming to subjective satisfaction as to whether such a person could be detained or not. He vehemently argued that the ground is only one that the detenu was a bootlegger therefore it would not make any difference whether cases pertaining to the detenu which were remote in point of time