(Per P .5. Narayana, J.)

Smt. Lalitha, w/o. Banoth Sammaiah, filed the present Writ Petition praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu by name Banoth Sammaiah s/o.Balu Naik, aged 28 years, RIo. K.K. Nagar Mandai, Kamanpur of Karimnagar District and set him at liberty by declaring the detention order dated 7-4-2007 in Rc. No. 306/2007/P & Ex/A3 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order in G. O. Rt. No. 1942, General Administration (Law and Order. II) Department dated 12-4-2007 passed by the 151 respondent approving the detention order as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1986 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of K.K. Nagar, Godavarikhani of Kamanpur Mandai of Karimnagar District and eking out livelihood by working as a daily agricultural labour and she is the wife of the detenu by name Banoth Sammaiah and her husband also is working as agricultural labour and they are poor and belong to socially and economically backward class community. It is stated that the 2nd respondent herein passed the order dated 7-4-2007 in Rc. No. 306/2007/P&Ex/A3 exercising the powers under Section 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 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience) on the ground that the detenu was involved in three criminal cases i.e., (i) C.O.R.No. 19/2006-07 dated 20-4-2006, (ii) C.O.R.No. 470/2006-07 dated 29-12-2006 and (iii) C.O.R.No. 635/2006-07 dated 12-3-2007 under Section 7-A r/w. Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act 1995 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Godavarikhani-II of Karimnagar district. It is further stated that charge sheet was filed in all the above said cases on 28-3-2007 and they are pending for trial. The detenu was taken into custody on 7-4-2007 and is detained in Central Prison, Warangal. The detenu was served with the detention order dated 7-4-2007 and the grounds of detention and in the grounds of detention only three cases as aforesaid were referred to for initiation of the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. It is also stated that the involvement of the detenu in the above referred cases is yet to be established by the competent court in which the charge sheet was filed. Except the above said three cases, the detenu was not involved in any other case nor he was convicted for any other offence. The passing of the impugned order referring to the above three criminal cases is irrelevant and does not constitute a ground for initiating proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. The acts of the detenu alleged in the above criminal cases does not constitute any offence or acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order even if they were taken on their face value and as such the detention order is liable to be set aside the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent did not appreciate the material placed before it and had passed the order mechanically and the material placed before the 2nd respondent does not warrant passing of the detention order dated 7-4-2007. It is also stated that the 1st respondent-detaining authority relied on three crimes referred above in which the detenu was stated to have involved in possession of 5 litres of I.D. Liquor, 20 litres of I.D. liquor and 5 litres of 1.0. liquor respectively. The possession of small quantity of liquor does not cause any prejudice to the maintenance of public order. Further, the grounds shown in the detention order are stale, irrelevant and hence the detention order is liable to be set aside and it is not known which ground influenced the detention authority in passing the impugned order. Further, the detenu was arrested in all the three cases and was released on bail and charge sheet was