Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.BAYAPU REDDY, S.S.M.QUADRI
Konala Syamala - Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate, E.G.District, Kakinada - Respondent
Decided On : 09-23-96
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - ANDHRA PRADESH PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOT LEGGERS, DACOITS; DRUG-OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND LAND GRABBERS ACT, 1986 - SECTION 3(2) R/W. SECTION 3(1) - DETENTION ORDER - GROUNDS - SUFFICIENCY - PUBLIC ORDER - MAINTENANCE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order passed by the first respondent, Collector and District Magistrate, under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits; Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (the Act). The detenu was alleged to be a bootlegger indulging in illegal transportation of liquor into the districts of East Godavari and West Godavari, violating the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act, and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the detention orders were not valid and were liable to be quashed. The Court found that the grounds of detention did not establish that the detenu's activities amounted to "acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. The Court noted that the detenu was not present at the time of the alleged seizures of liquor and was sought to be implicated based on alleged confessional statements of other persons. The Court also found that the contraband seized did not contain any harmful or spurious substances that would constitute a grave danger to life or public health.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention orders passed by the first respondent were valid and could be sustained? 2. Whether the detenu's activities amounted to "acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the detention orders were not valid and were liable to be quashed as they were violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 2. The Court found that the grounds of detention did not establish that the detenu's activities amounted to "acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. The Court noted that the detenu was not present at the time of the alleged seizures of liquor and was sought to be implicated based on alleged confessional statements of other persons. The Court also found that the contraband seized did not contain any harmful or spurious substances that would constitute a grave danger to life or public health.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition with costs and quashed the detention orders passed by the first respondent. The Court ordered that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any case.
( 1 ) THE petitioner here in is the wife of the detenu, Konala Baiarama Ratna reddy alias Ramulu, s/o. Venkata Reddy of Ravulapalem Village, East godavari District.
( 2 ) THE Collector and District Magistrate of East Godavari District who is the first respondent, passed the detention orders in reference No: C1 (M)/1295/96 dated 8-8-1996 under the provisions of Section 3 (2) r/w. Section 3 (1) of the andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits; drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) (for short the Act ), directing the detention of the detenu on the ground that he is a boot-legger indulging in illegal transportation of liquor into the districts of East Godavari and West Godavari from outside and has been violating the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act and A. P. Prohibition Act and is acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the wife of the detenu seeking a writ of Habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu who is now detained in the Central Prison, Rajahmundry before the Court and release him forthwith after quashing the order of the detention passed by the first respondent. The order of detention was passed on 8-8-1996 and the detenu was served with such order and has been detained from 9-8-1996 onwards and later on the grounds of detention contained in reference No: C1 (M)/1295/96 dated 12-8-1996 enumerated by the first respondent were also served on the detenu.
( 3 ) THE order of detention is challenged by the petitioner contending that the detenu is not a boot-legger and has not acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; that the grounds mentioned in the order of detention are vague and the order itself is passed without application of mind by the first respondent and that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
( 4 ) THE first respondent, whose counter affidavit is filed in support of the detention orders passed by him, has, however, tried to contend that the detenu is a boot-legger indulging in clandestine business of importing liquor into the districts of East Godavari and West Godavari from other States thereby violating the provisions of the A. P, Excise Act and A. P. Prohibition Act; that he has, therefore, acted ina manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Act; that such detention orders are passed with a view to prevent him from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention orders are also approved by the Government in g. O. Rt. No. 4568 General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 19-8-1996 and that the detention orders, therefore, cannot be questioned.
( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the detention orders passed by the first respondent are not valid and are liable to be quashed?
( 6 ) IT is seen from a perusal of the detention orders and the grounds of detention that such detention orders are sought to be passed by the first respondent on the ground that the detenu is a boot-legger as defined in the Act and is indulging in illegal transportation of liquor violating the provisions of the a. P. Excise Act and A. P. Prohibition Act and that such conduct on his part amounts to "acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as denned in Section 2 (a) of the Act. It is to be seen from the grounds of detention that the detention orders are passed by the first respondent on the basis of the information supplied to him by the second respondent who is the Assistant commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, East Godavari District, relating to some offences under A. P. Excise Act and A. P. Prohibition Act al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
