An order of detention cannot be passed solely on the ground of violation of the Excise Act or possession of spurious liquor without specific mention of the components in the spurious liquor and the extent to which they could cause danger to public health.

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner addressed a letter to this Court praying for release of her son by name Mahesh Kumar who was detained for violation of the offence uner the Excise Act for selling liquor without licence. That letter was treated as taken up writ petition.

( 2 ) AT the stage of admission the learned advocate- General took notice of the writ petition and filed a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by one prabhaker Rao s/o Ananda Rao whose designation is not indicated. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the said Mahesh kumar was detained on 1-5-1995 and that the order of detention was confinned on 12-5-1995 for a period of one year. It is stated that the detention order was passed on the ground that he was selling spurious liquor which is bound to adversely affect the public life or health.

( 3 ) SRI I. V. N. Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner who was appointed by the Legal Aid Cell to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner submits that violation of the provisions of the Excise Act is not ground to pass the order of detention and therefore the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. On behalf of the Advocate-General it is contended that the petitioner has not only violated the provisions of the Excise Act but also indulged in production of spurious liquor which will adversely affect the public health and hence the impugned order is justified.

( 4 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the order of detention is sustainable in law.

( 5 ) ON 1-5-95 the order of detention was passed by the District Collector, the relevant portion of grounds of detention as follows: "the four samples of liquor bottles which were seized on 16-4-1995 were sent to the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise, Guntur on 27-4-1995 for analysis. The Chemical Examiner for Excise, Guntur has opined that the samples of Me Dowel Whisky 750 ml 2) Me Dowel Brandy 375 ml. 3) Bagpiper Whisky 750 ml. are substandard IML unfit for human consumption as they contained sedement with less alcoholic strength. Sample of item No. 4 i. e. , 180 ml. of loose liquor is spurious liquor, injurious to health unfit for human consumption. The investigation of the case has yet to be completed to file charge-sheet. "

( 6 ) ON a perusal of the order of detention it is evident that there are two main limbs of the grounds of detention, namely, (i) violation of the provisions of the Excise Act; and (ii) possession of spurious liquor which is injurious to the health and unfit for human consumption. In so far as the first ground is concerned, there is no dispute that the order of detention cannot be passed on that ground in view of the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 13665 of 1995 dt. 8-8-1995. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in ahmed hussain v. Police Commr. , Ahmedabad (1) AIR 1989 SC 2274,it is laid down therein that there is gap between law and order and public order and that criminal offence may relate to the field of law and order but such offence would not necessarily give rise to a situation of public order. It was held that selling of liquor by the petitioner would certainly amount to violation of the provisions under the prohibition Act but without some-thing more would not give rise to a problem of public order. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) EVEN with regard to the second aspect, it would be useful to take note of the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in B. C. Subbarayudu v. District collector (2) 1995 (1) ALT (Crl.) 58. In that case the order of detention waspassed on the ground that the liquor distilled by the petitioner therein was containing harmful substances constituting grave danger to life or public health. This Court while expressing the view that only if the activities of bootleggers cause grave or wide spread danger to public health, he co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document