R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner who is the father of the detenu by name A. Mallareddy R/o. Madapur, Nirmal Mandal in Adilabad district, for quashing the detention orders passed under the provisions of sec. 3 (2) r/w. Sec. 3 (l) of A. P. 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" ).

( 2 ) THE Collector and District Magistrate, Adilabad passed the impugned detention orders in Rc. No. D3/1438/96, dated 5-8-1996 under Sec3 (2) r/w. Sec3 (1) of the Act, directing the detention of the detenu for a period of one year on the ground that he has been acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by "committing offences under Secs. 2 (a) and 2 (g) of the Act". The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 16-8-1996 and the detenu was arrested on 31-8-1996 and confined in the Central Prison, hyderabad, The said detention orders were passed on the basis of the material placed before the Collector and District Magistrate by the Assistant superintendent of Police, Nirmal who is the sponsoring authority. The detention orders were passed or, the ground that the detenu is a "goonda" and is involved in committing various offences along with his associates and has been acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing such offences and as such, it is necessary to invoke the provisions of the Act for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for producing the detenu in Court and setting him at liberty after quashing the detection orders contending that the orders of detention were passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind on irrelevant and non-existing grounds; that the sponsoring authority has not placed the relevant material before the detaining authority; that the detenu is not a goonda and he is not acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there was no material before the detaining authority to form such opinion that the detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the orders of detention are invalid and illegal and are liable to be quashed,

( 4 ) THE first respondent, who is the then Collector and District Magistrate and who passed the impugned orders of detention, has filed his counter-affidavit stating that the entire relevant material was placed before him by the sponsoring authority whois the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Nirmal, and on the basis of such material made available before him, he was satisfied that the detenu is a goonda and has been accustomed to commit various offences and act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the orders of detention are, therefore, valid and legal.

( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the detention orders passed by the first respondent are not valid and legal and are liable to be quashed?

( 6 ) IT is seen from a perusal of die orders of detention and the grounds put forward by the first respondent for such detention, that the impugned detention orders were passed on the basis of the material said to have been supplied to him by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Nirmal and on the ground that the detenu is a goonda as defined in Sec. 2 (g) of the Act and that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in Sec. 2 (a) of the Act. In order to appreciate the point in issue, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.

( 7 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the Act is as follows:-"2 (A) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means when a boot-legger, a dacoit, a drug-offender, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document