( 1 ) THIS is a petition for Habeas Corpus filed by the father of the detenu viz. Sri Chinnaboyina Shanker, saying that the order of detention is bad.

( 2 ) THE detenu has been ordered to be detained by an order of the Commissioner of Police,hyderabad, dt. 25-10-1988, To appreciate the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we may reproduce the order :"sbc No. 3/dga/d1/88. Dated : 25-10-1988. Order of the detention under the Andbra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Whereas I,t. Suryanarayana Rao, I P. S. Commissioner of Police, hyderabad, am satisfied in respect of Sri Chinnaboyina Shanker, s/o venkataiah, 28 years, Rowdy R/o H. No. 2-23-504/5, Raghunathanagar, amberpet, Hyderabad, that with a view to preventing him from dangerous activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing the said chinnaboina Shanker, shall be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me contained in the Andhra Pradesh prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers act, 1986 R/w Order of the Government of A. P. issued in G. O. Rt. No. 2876 General Administration (General-A) Department dated 26-8-1988. I do hereby direct U s 3 (1) o the above said Act that sri Chinnaboina Shanker S/o Venkataiah shall be detained under the said Act and lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. Given under my hand and seal of this 25th day of October, 1988. Sd/- T. Suryanarayana Rao, commissioner of Police, hyderabad. "

( 3 ) THE detenu thereafter was served with the grounds of detention by proceedings dt. 26-10-1988. For the purpose of the present case, we need not go into the grounds or their validity. The impugned order is challenged as being violative of Sec. 3 (1) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas. Immoral Traffie offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ). The submission of the counsel for the detenu is that before a competent authority, like the government, can invoke its jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. 3 (1) with a view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, the person concerned must be, to the satisfaction of the detaining authority, a boot legger, dacoit, drug offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land grabber. Unless the person falls in any of the categories specified in Sec. 3 (1), the competent authority, which, is the Government, cannot pass any detention order. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the detenu it will be useful to look into Sec 3 (1) of the Act which is as under :"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or landgrabber that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do. make an order directing that such person be detained. "

( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Advocate-General, on the other hand, submits that it is not neceessary that the order of detention should, on the facs of it, show the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the person concerned belongs to any of the categories viz. , boot-leggers, dacoits, drug-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers etc. , but it is sufficient if the satisfaction of the detaining authority was recorded separately in the grounds. Section 2 of the Act defines boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender and land-grabber etc In support of his submission, the learned Addl. Advocate-General, referred us to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dist. Magistrate, No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document