N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, one Smt. Shaik Lal Bee, has filed this writ petition seekingfor quashing of order of detention passed by the District Collector and District magistrate, Nalgonda dated 8-10-1997 under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), as confirmed by the State of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Rt no. 6187, dated 3-12-1997, detaining the petitioner s son by name Shaik khasim, son of Madar Sab on the ground that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the alleged detenu is a law abiding citizen and at no time he has committed any act which had disturbed the public order, and the cases which were filed against him ended in acquittal, and that the order of detention is made with a mala fide intention. The order of detention passed on irrelevant and stale grounds cannot be sustained. The cases referred to in the grounds, which were filed against the son of the petitioner, were in fact ended in acquittal and the same could not have been the basis for passing the detention order. The authorities failed to know the effect of acquittal in passing the detention order and to what extent the preventive detention law can be invoked in such circumstances. It is also contended that the order of detention is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, particularly the petitioner s son cannot be said as Goonda as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act warranting the circumstances to pass the detention order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order under challenge is the result of non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. The order of detention was made in order to subvert the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, nalgonda before whom the alleged detenu was the accused in Crime no. 60/97 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 I. P. C. r/w 149 I. P. C. on the file of Munagala Police Station, wherein the alleged detenu obtained bail. It is also contended that preventive detention is an extraordinary remedy and any order of detention passed should stand to reason and the absence of honest opinion formed by the Authorities concerned renders the order invalid. Sri Gopalakrishna Tamada, learned Counsel for the petitioner, lastly submits that the order of detention is bad and since the detenu was illegally detained he is entitled for payment of compensation. To support his contention, he placed reliajice on the decisions of the Supreme Court in rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Smt. K. Vijayalakshmi, learned Government Pleader,supported the order of detention. Her first contention is that the order of detention is the result of application of mind and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. When once the authority forms an opinion on the material made available before it and passes an order of detention, the same does not deserve to be interfered with unless it is shown that the decision arrived by such authority is not the result of subjective satisfaction but is passed on extraneous considerations or it is based on no evidence. According to her, among all the grounds, even if few grounds are irrelevant or stale or non- existent, the detention order can be upheld if the remaining grounds suggest invoking of preventive law and the order of detention can be passed as has been done in the instant case. The grounds on which the detention order is passed are relevant and certain. Mere discharge or acquittal for want of evidence in a criminal case will not prevent the authority from initiating preventive detention proceedings as the purposes of punitive proceedings and preventive proceedings are quite different. She further submitted that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document