SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) ONE Lungi Pr atap Singh was detained by order of the Collector and District magistrate, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, passed under Section 3 (1) and (2) read with Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Actno. 1 of 1986) (for short the Act ) dated 19-9-1996.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the son of the said detenu. He filed this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu in this Court and to release him forthwith after declaring the said order of detention as illegal and arbitrary. The said order of detention was served on the detenu, on 20-9-1996 and he was arrested on the same day. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, approved the impugned order of detention on 30-9-1996. The grounds of detention and the other material relied on by the 2nd respondent were supplied to the detenu on 24-9-1996.

( 3 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenges the impugned order of detention on two grounds viz. , (1) to justify the alleged clandestine sale of I. D. Liquor, the detaining authority must be satisfied that the fusel oil in the alleged illicit liquor was within the impermissible limit so as to cause grave wide spread danger to life and public health; Neither the report of the analyst is in the above terms nor the said detaining authority arrived at such a conclusion, and (2) in respect of grounds 4 to 7, no report of the analyst was placed before the detaining authority, therefore, those grounds are irrelevant and the order of detention was passed without application of mind.

( 4 ) HEARD Ms. J. Vijayalakshmi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General.

( 5 ) A perusal of the grounds of detention discloses that the order of detention was passed on 7 instances quoted in the grounds, of detention. They relate to seizure of various quantities of I. D. Liquor sachets, two electrical sacheting machines and one alcoholometre. The first instance is dated 20-5-1995 wherein a raid was conducted on a house in Jungur Basthi, Lower Dhoolpet and the detenue was arrested and Crime No. 340/94-95 was registered by the Station house Officer (Prohibition and Excise), Narayanaguda under Section 34 (a) of the a. P. Excise Act, 1968 read with Section 8 (b) of Prohibition Act, 1995 and that the detenu was released on bail. The second instance is dated 21-8-1995 wherein a surprise raid was conducted on H. No. 14-10-885, Jungur Basthi, Lower dhoolpet and polythene bags containing 150 I. D. Liquor sachets were seized and the detenu was arrested and Crime No. 577/94-95 was registered by the station House Officer (Prohibition and Excise), Narayanaguda under Section 34 (a) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and in that crime also the detenu was released on bail. The third instance is that on 31-8-1995 a surprise raid was organised on house No. 14-10-885, Jungur Basthi, Lower Dhoolpet and one gunny bag containing 380 sachets of I. D. Liquor was seized and the detenue was arrested and Crime No. 595/94-95 was registered by the Station House Officer (Prohibition and Excise) Narayanaguda under Section 34 (a) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and in that crime also the detenu was released on bail.

( 6 ) THE above three instances are relevant for the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated in the impugned order that the government Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad analysed the samples of I. D. Liquor in the above three cases and opined that "the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for potable purpose". The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an observation in the Judgment of A division Bench of this Court in B. C. Subbarayudu vs. District Collectorl, whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document