N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, 2nd respondent herein, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3 (2) read with Section 2 (a) and (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short act 1 of 1986 ), by which the husband of the petitioner, Kandula Trinath Rao, was detained in Central Prison at Visakhapatnam, on the ground that he is involved in committing the offences of violent and goonda acts very frequently in violation of the laws of the land and doing clandestine business and creating terror in the minds of the public and that his goonda acts are affecting adversely the maintenance of public order in the area of Railway Yards, National Alluminium Company, Central Ware House Godown, Hindusthan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and in all the abutting areas. The said order of detention dated 26-12-1997 passed by the 2nd respondent was approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1st respondent herein, in G. O. Rt. No. 44, General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 5-1-1998.

( 2 ) THE detenu, Kandula Trinadha Rao, was supplied with a copy of grounds of detention, which referred to 20 incidents alleged to have been committed by him on different dates ranging between 21/08/1988 to 29-11-1997 for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act regarding which independent crimes were registered. The grounds of detention reveal that the detenu was convicted in some cases, acquitted in some cases and some cases arc still pending before the Courts at Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada. It is the above criminal activities of the detenu which has led to the passing of the order of detention.

( 3 ) AFTER service of notice the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the detention order passed by him. He stated in his counter-affidavit that the offences under RP (UP) Act were shown in the grounds of detention only to show the conduct and antecedents of the detenu to commit the crimes again and again. According to him, the activities of the detenu squarely falls under the definition goonda as defined under Section 2 (g) of Act 1 of 1986. He further stated that in some of the cases referred to in the grounds of detention, the detenu was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

( 4 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner attacked the said order of detention on several grounds. According to him, Act 1 of 1986 cannot be attracted to the case of the detenu. He further contends that the detenu cannot be brought within the definition of goonda as defined under Section 2 (g) of Act 1 of 1986, that the grounds of detention are stale and irrelevant; that most of the cases referred to in the grounds of detention were ended in acquittal, as such it is not proper to make use the same allegations as the grounds for detention of the detenu, that when some grounds are irrelevant the detention should not have been ordered on the basis of other grounds, that the order of detention is illegal as the authority who passed the said order failed to notice that the reference made to several incidents do not come within the definition of disturbance of public order and that, therefore, the order of detention is a resultant of non-application of mind to the Laws of public safety, decisions rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court under similar circumstances, including the improper understanding of the word goonda as defined under Section 2 (g) of Act 1 of 1986. To support his contentions, he relied on the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, which will be referred later.

( 5 ) SMT. K. Vijaya Lakshmi, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document