SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(AP) 113

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : RAMANUJULU NAIDU, V.BHASKARA RAO
Shaik Sardar - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
W.P.No.664/91
Decided On : 03-13-91
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. O. Kailasnath Reddy

Headnote:AP PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, Dacoits Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act 1 of 1986, Sec 3 [1] - Order of detention of a person who is not bounded as one of the persons covered by Sec 3 [1] and without recording the satisfaction of detaining authority - Not legal

       Held : Section 3 (1) of the Act can be invoked only if the detaining authority is satisfied that the detenue answers the description of a Bootleggar or a Dacoit or a Drug Offender or a Land Grabber and not otherwise In the impugned Order of detention the detenue is not branded as one of the persons covered by Sec 3 (1) of the Act In other words, there is no satisfaction of description of any type of persons covered by Sec 3 [1] of the Act recorded by the detaining authority The impugned order of detention is, therefore, per se bad and to liable to be quashed

       WP Allowed

RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce before this Court the body of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, after quashing the order dated 6th January, 1991 passed by the Second Respondent directing detcntion of the petitioner in the District Jail, Secunderabad, for a period of six months initially in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under 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 1 of 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with g. O. Rt. No. 4647, General Administration (General-A) Department, government of A. P. dated 21st December, 1990 and to set him at liberty forthwith. The impugned order of datention reads that with a view to preventing the detenu from committing dangerous activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was sought to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Act. Sec. 3 (1) of the Act can only be invoked if the detaining authority is satisfied that the detenu answers the description of a Boot Legger or a Dacoit or Drug-Offender or a Goonda or an immoral Traffic Offender or a Land-Grabber and not otherwise. Unfortunatcly, in the impugned order of detention the detenu is not branded as one of the persons covered by Section 3 (1) of the Act. In other words, there is no satisfaction of description of any type of persons covered by sec. 3 (1) of the Act recorded by the detaining authority. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, per se bad and liable to be quashed. In this view, it is unnecessary to advert to the grounds of detention served upon the detenu. We accordingly quash the impugned order of detention dated 6th January, 1991 passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top