The power of detention under Sec. 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, can be exercised only if the detaining authority is satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that such activities are likely to cause "grave or widespread danger to life or public health".

( 1 ) AN order of detention passed by the District Collector-cum-District magistrate, Anantapur, under Sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) of A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and land Grabbers Act, 1986, (for short the Act ) by which one Kimmoneni Chinnappa Reddy son of Gangulappa, resident of Sydapuran, kadiri Town of Anantapur District was detained on the ground that he is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act, is challenged in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IN support of the order of detention dated 15-12-1993 six grounds have been mentioned. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 refer to the searches conducted by the excise officials in consequence of which certain quantities of illicitly distilled arrack were seized from the petitioner s house (Ground No. 1), the hut of Smt. Waheeda Bee, a resident of Kadiri (Ground no. 2 and from the hut of one K. Bayamma, a resident of Jowkupalam (Ground No. 3 ). In respect of all the three incidents, cases were registered by the excise officials. When the samples of the seized quantities of arrack were sent to the Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, reports were received confirming that "the samples were all diluted arrack of strength 40. 1, 30. 39 and 40. 69 U. P. respectively. " (Vide Ground No. 4) the detaining authority, therefore, concluded:"on a reasonable prognosis of your future behaviour based on your past conduct, I am further satisfied that you are likely to indulge in the said bootlogging activity in future also and that the action taken in seizure of the contraband, your arrest and sending for remand or prosecution under the normal law (A. P. Excise act) will not have the desired effect of immediately preventing you from further acting in the said manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and is affecting it adversely, as the culmination of those actions takes a considerably long time. Being fully satisfied that the only effective way of stopping you from acting so in future is to detain you, invoking the powers vested in me under Section 3 (2) read with Section 3 (1) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (A. P. Act 1 of 1986) 1 have today passed order for your detention. "

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order of detention, the petitioner filed earlier W. P. No. 2180 of 1994 which was dismissed by a Division bench of this court comprising G. Radhakrishna Rao and Ramesh Madhav Bapat, jj. , by an order dated 9th march, 1994. One of the points specifically taken in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of that writ petition was that "the report of the Chemical Examiner mentions that it is only a diluted arrack and there is no whisper of allegation that the diluted arrack that is alleged to have been seized is likely to endanger the health of the Society and thereby the public order is likely to get affected and therefore, the grounds contained in the detention order and the seizure of arrack have no relevance to the object of the said Act and it has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved under the said Act and there is no involvement of public order in respect of the above said three incidents. " Some other pleas also were raised in the writ petition like non- application of mind by the detaining authority, failure on the part of the State Government to consider the representation of the detenue within reasonable time etc. The Division bench has negatived all the pleas raised by the petitioner. Adverting to the question that the chemical Examiner s report does not show that the seized stock was injurious to public health, the Division Bench observed:"admittedly in the present case the detenue was found in dealing and transporting of arrack which was prohibited by the order of Andhra Pradesh Government. It cannot be said that selling of arrack