( 1 ) (AT the Stage of Admission) This petition is filed seeking writ of habeas corpus questioning theorder dated 22-12-1993 passed by the second respondent in Cr. No. 4904 / 93 / Fl directing detention of the petitioner s husband - E. Thirupathi Reddy - for a period of three months on the allegation that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he is indulging in sale of uncertified and cheap liquor endangering public health.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us - M. N. Rao and P. Ramakrishnam Raju, JJ. , - one of the contentions raised before the Division Bench was that neither the impugned order of detention nor the grounds supplied to the detenu specifically mentioned that the detenu is a boot legger and, therefore, the order is vitiated on that ground on the authority of two Division Bench judgments of this Court in C. Venkataiah vs. Commissioner of Police and Shaik Shikinder vs. Govt. of A. P.

( 3 ) IN Venkataiah s case, a Division Bench of this Court was of the opinion that unless the satisfaction of a particular type covered by Section 3 (1) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is mentioned in the order of detention, the condition precedent for applicability of Section 3 (1) of the Act is not satisfied and consequently, the order will be invalid. To the same effect is the other Division Bench decision in Shaik Shikinder s case.

( 4 ) DISAGREEING with the aforesaid view of the two Division Benches the Division Bench comprising M. N. Rao and P. Ramakrishnam Raju, JJ. , observed:"with great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by the two Division Benches. When the grounds mention in detail the alleged activities of the detenu, failure to specify under what category of persons the detenu falls, in our view, is not a vitiating factor. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the two decisions require reconsideration and the question needs to be considered authoritatively by a Ful1 bench of this Court. "consequenlty, the matter is posted before us.

( 5 ) THE impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3 (2) of the Act. In the grounds supplied to the detenu along with the detention order, the following three instances are mentioned:"on26-9-1990,atabout7-05 A. M. , while you were transporting 2,500 1itres of arrack of 90 ml. sachets at Chandampet Bus-stop without any valid transport permit or licence to possess the above said contraband. Thereby the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandampet seized the abovesaid contraband and transferred to the Excise Sub-Inspector, range Gundlapally (Dindi ). The Excise Sub-Inspector, range Gundlapally registered a crime and occurrence report No. 13 / 89 - 90. dt. 26-9-1990 under Section 31 (l) (b) of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and is compounded. On 18-11-1993, at about 12-50 noon, while you were in possession of 753 nips of spurious liquor in your house bearing No. 1-88 without any valid permits or licence to possess the same, thereby the Excise Sub-Inspector, range Gundlapally seized the above said contraband and registered a case in crime and occurrence report No. 30/93-94 dated 18-11-1993 under Section 34 (a) of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and is pending for laying of charge-sheet. You have also threatened the informer in this case by name B. Kondal Reddy, s/o Krishna Reddy, R/o Thimmanur with dire consequences and forcibly collected Rs. 2,000/- from his parents of informant B. Kondal Reddy. A petitiondated 25-11-1993 has been received by the Collector in this regard. It clearly shows you high handed behaviour and mens rea. . . . . . . Moreover, the sale of uncertified and cheap liquor of doubtful quality in large quantity on the eve of the ensuing festival seasons like the Christmas, the New Year Day celebrations and Sankranthi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document