RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 12-6-2000 passed by the collector and the District Magistrate, khammam in Rc. No. Cl/795/2000. In the impugned order it is stated that the brother of the Writ Petitioner herein habitually indulges in procuring and trading in explosive substances, and therefore he falls under the category of goonda as defined in section 2 (g) of A,p. Prevention of, Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Land grabbers Act, 1986 - (for brevity the Act ), and therefore, the Collector passed order directing detention of the brother of the petitioner herein so as to secure public safety. The said order has been challenged before us.

( 2 ) ON receipt of the Writ Petition, notice was issued to the respondents and the respondents filed their counter.

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited our attention to the definition goonda given under section 2 (g) of Act, 1986.

( 4 ) THE word goonda is defined as under:"section 2 (g) goonda 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. "

( 5 ) IN the impugned order in the grounds of detention it is stated by the Collector that the brother of the petitioner is facing various cases. The first case is in Crime no. 18/90 under Section 9-B{2) of Indian explosives Act. The second case against the alleged detenu is in Crime No. 152/94 under Section 6-A (2) read with 9-B (l) (b) IE act of Khammam Rural Police Station. The third case he is facing is in Crime No. 190/ 94 under Section 6-A (2) read with 9 (b) (l) (b) of IE Act of Khanapour Haveli Police station. The fourth case being faced by the alleged detenu is in Crime No. 165/98 under Section 6-A read with 9-B (a) of IE Act of Khammam Rural Police Station and the fifth case he is facing is in Crime no. 24/2000 under Section 3 and 5 of ES Act of Mudigonda Police Station. All the offences which are alleged of against the alleged detenu are not covered by chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore the petitioner s brother cannot be styled as a goonda as per the definition.

( 6 ) WE are in agreement with the above submission made by the learned Counsel. We hold that the order of detention is totally illegal, as it is not in conformity with the definition of the word goonda .

( 7 ) THEREFORE, we allow the Writ Petition directing the respondents herein to release petitioner s brother Bodapatla Venkanna, s/o Pullaiah who is detained in Central Jail, warangal forthwith, if not required in any other case.

( 8 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document